GWD 30-15

xyredpoppy

顶起，还是觉得C对，照E的意思说，在农村失业就不算失业了....

才看明白，C说的是农村失业率的问题，题里已经明确给了是urban unemployment，C是无关选项~

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/9/8 10:42:00编辑过]

amumu

题目：降低关税-》导致腰果加工厂地区失业率上升。

C：（如果关税降低，则腰果出口需求上升），人们可以选择去种腰果，而不是加工腰果。

-》导致失业率不会上升。

所以是Weaken。

E：如果关税保持不变（姑且认为这个是前提，其实选项没有很清楚的提到），则农民获利降低，放弃种植，涌入城市。这就会产生2种情况：

1. 但是关税不变的情况下，腰果国内加工仍然红火，因此农民涌入城市也可以从事腰果加工。所以失业率不一定上升。（和题目没有关系）

2. 关税不变-》失业率上升。（是他因的weaken）

所以E存在不确定性。

feifeizoe

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants.  If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews.  However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

  

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

  

1. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
2. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
3. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
4. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
5. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

逻辑简图：

1. high tariff on unprocessed cashew nuts => sold to domestic processing plants.
2. lift (去除) tariff => farmers can get profit
3. remove tariff => increase urban unemployment

这里有一个however的转折。

如果要削弱这个结论的话，就要说明去除关税不会增加城市失业率，或者高关税不会减少城市失业率。

A中：副产品，无关选项

B中：其他国家情况，无关

C中：更过人种植，无关

D中：买入低价非加工腰果可以是加工者获益。(这个就支持高关税，而非削弱)

E中：如果种植无法盈利，农民会去城市。（间接说明：高关税->农民低利润->跑去城里->增加城里失业率->于是原来对于高关税可以使城市失业率减少的希望破灭）

因此选择E，而且这个也是prep的题目，OA也是E

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/9/2 19:35:05编辑过]