搜索
查看: 598|回复: 18

求NN们解释一道CR题--700-800 level上的,各种网站上的解释都看了还是不懂啊

[复制链接]
发表于 2018-10-17 20:08:19 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
弄了好半天还是不知道问题在哪里,希望有好心人能帮忙解答一下,题目如下:

The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?

A - For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.

B -While the government’s calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.

C- Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government’s calculation method.

D - Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.

E - The government’s calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

答案是C,我选的E,当时是在C和E之间徘徊,但是想了想C选项在说private sector的调查,但是调查未必可靠啊,而E选项进一步说明了政府的计算方法有问题,所以需要alter,加强了“ government's calculation methods must be altered”,我的逻辑有啥问题呢?望大家指点,谢谢了。。。
发表于 2018-10-17 20:28:29 | 显示全部楼层
个人看法,原文里说的是income,也就是衡量一个人是否是穷人就看他的income,结论大致是说政府现在的计算方式没有把所有收入包括进去

但E选项里只说了有assets,没有说有assets就会有额外收入,emmm...这种好像挺多的,看着有道理但是其实是自己脑补的
发表于 2018-10-17 23:17:39 | 显示全部楼层
问题的目的是in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty --而选项e只是提供了另外一个例子来表示gov的算法算进去了一部分人,与原文当中的retiree的效果其实是重复的

而c选项是表示了gov的这种算法的结果是真的错了,所以选c
发表于 2018-10-18 10:26:58 | 显示全部楼层
我的逻辑用的是helr毕老师的方法,在这道题里的应用应该就是这样
因:retirees who earn lots of money were still classified as "poverty"
果:yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure
因果推理,并且这题题干的意思就是支持这个结论
所以正确答案无非就是从两种角度出发
CQ1:因果联系问题(加强因果联系,比如C选项的给出另一个证明的例子)
CQ2:干扰因素(在加强的角度就是排除干扰因素,比如说排除这种人只是很小很小部分,可以被忽略,也就是A选项,如果这题是削弱的话,最好的答案就是他)
所以本题答案里快速过一遍,符合这个因果推理CQ1的只有C选项
E选项的问题在于他是说算法错误的算上了某一部分人,而咱们的因果在讲的是漏算了某一部分人,并加强这个漏算的因果,所以是不对的,算是比较迷惑的out of scope
 楼主| 发表于 2018-10-18 13:36:23 | 显示全部楼层
FailAgain 发表于 2018-10-18 10:26
我的逻辑用的是helr毕老师的方法,在这道题里的应用应该就是这样
因:retirees who earn lots of money wer ...

感谢解答!!不过我还是有点问题,“而咱们的因果在讲的是漏算了某一部分人,并加强这个漏算的因果,所以是不对的”,可是文章讲的不是漏算了一部分人,而是多算了一部分人。文章说计算方法上没有算上“capital gains,non-cash government benefits”,所以把那些有capital gains from an extensive portfolil的老年人也算成了poverty,就是说计算poverty的时候多算了一些人进去啰,而E选项也是说把那些有substantial assets的人也算进去了,跟文章就是一个意思了,咋就不是加强咧?
 楼主| 发表于 2018-10-18 13:40:25 | 显示全部楼层
joii 发表于 2018-10-17 20:28
个人看法,原文里说的是income,也就是衡量一个人是否是穷人就看他的income,结论大致是说政府现在的计算方 ...

感谢解答,我还是很晕啊,可能我在加强题的思路上出了偏差吧,所以这类题型的正确率很低啊
 楼主| 发表于 2018-10-18 13:44:18 | 显示全部楼层
fuckoffand 发表于 2018-10-17 23:17
问题的目的是in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty --而选项e只是提供了另外一个例子 ...

感谢解答!!但是为啥重复强调就不是加强原文了呢?强调文章的premise不就是更进一步支持了文章吗?
发表于 2018-10-18 13:52:49 | 显示全部楼层
dreamtime666 发表于 2018-10-18 13:44
感谢解答!!但是为啥重复强调就不是加强原文了呢?强调文章的premise不就是更进一步支持了文章吗? ...

加强削弱题一般都不会重复原文噢,重复原文的话就丧失目的了不是?因为重复原文只不过是起到了repeat的作用,而非strengthen/weaken the assumption的作用。
发表于 2018-10-18 14:52:25 | 显示全部楼层
官方解释:

The conclusion of the argument is that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty. To support this position, the author first explains how the government’s method works and then introduces a hypothetical example that would return a "false positive" - that is, a person who has a large income, yet is classified by the government as living in poverty. One example, however, is generally not enough to invalidate an entire method; no method is perfect and there are always a few results that are not consistent with the overall conclusion. In order to validate, or strengthen, the conclusion, we need to show that the government’s method is fundamentally inferior to some alternative that would produce more valid results.

(A) This choice weakens the argument by minimizing the importance of the author's evidence (the hypothetical retiree with capital gains). According to this choice, the use of cash income to designate poverty levels is a very sound method because it provides valid results for more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty.

(B) This choice shows that the government’s method provided a wide range of results for the poverty rate over a certain period of time, but it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It tells us nothing about whether the method provides relevant statistics in any given year.

(C) CORRECT. If this statement is true, then the government’s calculation method seems to overstate the number of people living in poverty, while the various private sector studies generally agree with each other that the number of people is lower. Thus, the methods used in the private sector are likely to be more valid than the government’s method, lending credence to the author's contention that the government’s method should change.

(D) Although this choice provides an example of people who might agree with the conclusion (several prominent economists), this choice provides no evidence that the alternate method they endorse would provide more relevant statistics than the government’s method.

(E) This choice adds another hypothetical example of how the current method could include someone in the poverty count who does not actually live in poverty. It does not, however, address whether there are other calculation methods that are more accurate than the government’s method.
发表于 2018-10-18 17:08:53 | 显示全部楼层
dreamtime666 发表于 2018-10-18 13:36
感谢解答!!不过我还是有点问题,“而咱们的因果在讲的是漏算了某一部分人,并加强这个漏算的因果,所以 ...

感谢9楼发的官方解释,我发现自己先前的理解有偏差
这题想要推理果其实是在题干中,conclusion should be "the government's calculation methods must be altered"
而整个Argument没有给出这个conclusion的原因,你可以把他看做一个填空题加入到原文的最后面可能会好理解一些 “the government's calculation methods must be altered,since _____”
然后我们重新看待E,发现他只是说了算法类似于原文的一个错误,而在原文我们知道这种错误只能得到“not a fool-proof measure”这个果。所以官方解释说“It does not, however, address ...”
然而C,他给出了must be altered的因,就是外面有更好的算法可供altered
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|Archiver|ChaseDream ( 京ICP证101109号 )

GMT+8, 2019-3-23 20:15 , Processed in 0.317878 second(s), 7 queries , Memcache On.

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2019 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部