gwd 29-8

titatita

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. 第一句:强加严格的环境法规减缓经济增长. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. 第二句反对第一句说:一个事实削弱了第一句的假设.这个事实是:有最严格环境法规的州也有最高的经济增长. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.第三句要我们找一个原因来反对第二句,也就是削弱第二句. 

1. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training
           

是他因导致最高增长,而不是最严格的环境法规.最严格环境法规的州在教育＆职业培训上投资最多.而且第二句论据是最严环境法规的州,答案也说最严格环境法规的州

B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations意思是:即使那些仅有中等严格环境法规的州也有更高的增长比起那些最不严格环境法规的州.

属于逻辑中的分类错误.原文要比较的是最高法规的州.本句说一般法规的州,对原文起不到任何作用.

如果非要说有作用也是加强文章第二句话.二不是文章要求的削弱第二句.

babypigsxm

UP！

hedge

thanks

sabrina07

up

gonghao

to 股疯

B means the more strict the regulation is , the faster the ecnomic increase would be.

A is the answer although it seems to beside the point at the first glance

benja

e怎么解释了？？？

vivian_chi

所以选项又给了我们一个assumption就是education and job training 可以导致经济高增长，这样的答案妥当么大家觉得？我觉得题目有问题，这样的assumption是需要背景知识的。

dan2007

up

pharmacystar

两种解题方法

第一种 他因法,A对,经济增长与环境的关系,

第二种,排除法,划线那句话,说的是fact,而那个fact说的是strictest的洲的事情,只有A foucus在这个topic,别的选项全部说的是别的洲的事情,全部是无关选项,排除.

jintian

d