求教OG11th-verbal-70

lb1900

70．When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income，a vicious cycle results。Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates，which causes the tax burden on non-evading taxpayers to become heavier This，in turn，encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income．

The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?

(A)   An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers to try to increase their pretax incomes．

(B)  Some methods for detecting tax evaders，and thus recovering some tax revenue lost through evasion，bring in more than they cost．but their success rate varies from year to yean

(C)  When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue，they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion．

(D)  No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time．

(E)  Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of taxation that will cause them to evade taxes．

C何意？是否打印有误？

wycg

以下是引用lb1900在2006-6-6 21:20:00的发言：

70．When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income，a vicious cycle results。Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates，which causes the tax burden on non-evading taxpayers to become heavier This，in turn，encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income．

The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?

(A)   An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers to try to increase their pretax incomes．

(B)  Some methods for detecting tax evaders，and thus recovering some tax revenue lost through evasion，bring in more than they cost．but their success rate varies from year to yean

(C)  When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue，they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion．

(D)  No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time．

(E)  Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of taxation that will cause them to evade taxes．

C何意？是否打印有误？

用排除法是可以找到C的.C翻过来就是"那些lawmaker在制定税法来得到稳定的revenue时,他们不容许revenue由于逃税而损失." ,  我理解就是想说"如果有人逃税使revenue 损失的话,那么lawnaker就会加税使revenue在原来的水平".  这道题是有些牵强.楼主能把OG上的解释打上吗?大家再看看.

lb1900

OG上的解释:

Argument Construction

Situation

When some people evade income taxes by hiding taxable income，income tax rates must be raised，placing a heavier tax burden on honest taxpayers．The higher rate，in turn，encourages more people to conceal taxable income．

Reasoning What must be true in order for this cycle to occur? Consider the factors that are assumed to drive this cycle．It is said that tax evasion forces legislative increases in tax rates to cover the loss of tax revenues．Under what conditions would this underlying assumption hold true?    When considering income tax rates in the first place，lawmakers must not take into account the amount of revenue that will inevitably be lost to evasion．

A  Any incentive to increase pretax incomes would counter the reported tendency to conceal income and thus break the cycle．

B  Success in detecting tax evaders，no matter how variable or cost effective，inhibits tax evasion and breaks the cycle．

C Correct．This statement properly identifies the argument's underlying assumption that lawmakers fail to consider the revenue 1ost to evasion when they determine tax rates．forcing the increased tax rates that drive the cycle．

D  Higher fines deter evaders and thus break the cycle．

E  If taxpayers did not differ, the cycle could never get started．Either everyone would evade taxes or no one would．This statement must be false．

The correct answer is C．

我认为，只有逃税的无法抓到，或lawmaker不下工夫抓逃税，才会产生如此恶性循环。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-6-7 13:13:30编辑过]

lb1900

懂了。关键在对allow for 的理解上。是consider的意思。

silvonou

不好意思，我還是不懂，題目不是問除非下列何者為真，那惡性循環就不會發生嗎？還是我題目會錯意了？

yalemba2007

我觉得wycg解释的有道理. 可是问题翻译成汉语就是:  除非下列何者為真，那惡性循環就不會發生嗎？还是: 如果下面那个不是真的, 那惡性循環就不會發生了. 我对UNLESS的理解越来越糊涂了. 按照UNLESS = IF... NOT...的说法,就应该是第二种理解. 但我的直觉是第一种意思. 我本来挺清楚的, 现在越看越糊涂了, 呵呵.

再补充一点, 我查了一下语法:

UNLESS

Unless means the same as if...not. Like if, it is followed by a present tense, a past tense or a past perfect (never by 'would'). It is used instead of if + not in conditional sentences of all types:

Type 1: (Unless + present)

a. You'll be sick unless you stop eating. (= You will be sick if you don't stop eating) b. I won't pay unless you provide the goods immediately. (= If you don't provide them I won't pay) c. You'll never understand English unless you study this grammar carefully. (= You'll never understand if you don't study...)

Type 2: (Unless + past)

a. Unless he was very ill, he would be at work. b. I wouldn't eat that food unless I was really hungry. c. She would be here by now unless she was stuck in the traffic.

Type 3: (Unless + past perfect)

a. The elephant wouldn't have seen the mouse unless she'd had perfect eyesight. b. I wouldn't have phoned him unless you'd suggested it. c. They would have shot her unless she'd given them the money.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-9-4 5:43:58编辑过]

zacharyzhang

问题的意思是：这个循环是由下面下面哪条原因造成的。“could not result unless”＝“because”
双重否定对冲之后，剩下could result while, 就是because
“如果不是XXX，就不会发生abc "的意思，和“因为XXX而发生abc”的意思是相同的

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-11-2 11:37:53编辑过]

zacharyzhang

再度拿起阅读理解大法，我一直相信只要全面正确理解了文章、问题和选项，答案就会跃然纸上。

原文的意思：逃税行为会引起一个恶性循环：逃税导致税收入不敷出，管理者不得不提高税率以期增加收入，纳税人负担加重，逃税更多了，于是管理者再增加税率。
问题：这个循环是由下面下面哪条原因造成的。——注意选项要能够解释这个循环的成因。

读选项前的分析：逃税-提高税率-逃税增加-再提高税率 这样一个循环，至少有三个方面共同作用：逃税行为存在，税收数量不足，和提高税率的行为。在来看选项：

A: 提高税率高申报的人获得补偿  ——这是可以打破恶性循环的情况，而不是造成这个恶性循环的情况
B: 查处逃税的成本高过挽回的逃税损失  ——这说明了为什么放纵那些人逃税，但不能解释整个恶性循环的成因
C: 一开始制定税率时忽视了逃税可能损失的收入部分  ——说明了收入不足的原因。进一步理解，无论有没有逃税行为，如果税收收入一开始就充足，那么就没有加税的必要了。看来在这个循环中，税收不足是一个核心原因。
D: 除非不逃税能够获得更大的好处，否则人们不会因为税率的降低而不再逃税  ——和B类似，部分解释了逃税行为。不过还是不能说明整个恶性循环的发生，尤其是没有解释如果提高税率会怎么样。
E: 纳税人逃税的愿望没有差异 ——So what，什么问题都没有说明。

PS  想起了一本书《第五项修炼》。原来逃税并不是核心问题，真正的问题是税率制定时没有把不可避免的逃税损失计算在内。

yanzie

E: 纳税人逃税的愿望没有差异:

如果这样，就会出现：要么所有人都逃税要么都不逃税的现象。从而，本循环根本就不会发生~~

aces

说说我个人的想法：

对于此类问题，我都是这么想的：原文是一个推理过程，我们现在首先想到是去如何攻击这个推理过程？如果找到某个或某几个攻击点，那么原推理的提出者就必须把这几个攻击点排除了才行，不然这个推理过程就站不住脚了。

原文的逻辑是：

纳税人不申报收入逃税－立法者提高税率－增加纳税人负担－逃税情况更多

如何攻击这个逻辑链呢？可以从以下三个方面进行攻击：

1）逃税多并不会引起立法者提高税率

2）立法者提高税率并不会增加纳税人负担

3）纳税人增加负担并不会逃税

只要这三个攻击点成立一个，就可以造成原来逻辑链断裂，这个逻辑推理过程就不成立了。

因此，回到原问题上，原推理的作者就必须把这三个可能的攻击点补上才行。

实际上，C的答案就是说明了：立法者在通过税收来generate revenue会增加纳税人负责。即上述第2个攻击点的对立面。

个人理解！不知道对不对？

PS:

我现在做assumption，首先就想到如何去攻击原来的立论，然后再排除了就行了。从这个意义上讲，AWA中的argument的思路可以借鉴一下。