GWD25--2

NOTALOSER

LS分析的很好，我也选了B，但是后来看大家讨论又觉得是C，但是讨论细致倒如此境界了，反而回过头又觉得是B了

wangyi217

vote for C

B.some firms根本没有代表性

og11最常见的解释就是some...不能说明...

skigorush

没办法1987

我怎么觉得BC都有问题

原文结论：因为很少有less than 5.5的，所以影响很小

我原来选的B，因为想的是，虽然很少有less 5.5的，但是less的程度比较大，所以还是会加很多工资才能到5.5，所以还是会有影响

看看大家的讨论...还是我理解有问题？？我的理解注意到considerably上

后来再看这个选项，是说：他现在已经less 5，违反K规定。这样想B就不对，现在不能推将来

但是不觉得C也是有问题的么？

新人工资高怎么就能推出大家工资都高了？

而且，题目是说，这个“incease”会导致“inflation”，是个动态的过程

B选项只是个常态，在说一个现象，过去如何，现在还是如何。他没有说这种reward是因为新规定的原因，所以也是觉得不对

如果我错误请指出...

没办法1987

又看了一遍题，

选c，

C许多公司雇佣的trainee拿的工资接近或者刚刚超过5块，而且要是trained比trainee拿得多

à提高最低工资,会使trainee的最低工资升高,而trained员工拿得要比trainee多

à提高最低工资会对实际上的工资水平造成影响(这里的many严格照应了原文的a very small proportion)

Hydroxybenzene

to weaken the argument, we should ground that this increase in wages will indeed drive the inflaltion rate up.

In choice (b), it doen't denying anything in the reasoning above, i.e. very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour
---> the impact on wages will probably be negligible. Even though some workers were paid less than KD5.00, it still doesn't have impact on the wages as a whole (or the impact is negligible)

In choice (c), it says that many businesses must pay their trained workers a higher wage than minimum wages. Thus, such businessese previously paid their trainees >KD5.00 per hour. Now they have to pay their trainees >KD5.50 per hours. (trainees are not workers). In this case, many businesses hire trainees so that it is not a some proportion that can be negligible. The argument is weakened.