[求助]GWD 23-9

coffeeaddict

Q9:

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.

没有什么思路，请NN解答，多谢！

everann

我觉得选E。

因为政府损害了农民的利益，目的是保证城市人口的就业率。

但是农民会由于利益被损害而离开土地奔向城市，反而对就业率造成冲击。

coffeeaddict

多谢指导！！

claire_wen

可是我看不懂耶~

argument: 移除關稅->破壞政府降低鄉村失業率的努力

題目是要我們weaken.

那我就是要找出移除關稅其實不會破壞政府所做的努力才是.

可是我怎麼覺得E無關呢? C還比較有可能一點

FlowerJay

这个推导比较恶心。E说的是没有免税会导致失业率上升。（!A->B） 但是未必免税就不会导致失业率上升(A->!B)我觉得这个违背了weaken的逻辑推理。可是看五个答案里面，只有E最像了。。。 这道题是不严谨呢？还是我的想法不对？请高人指教阿，拜谢！

xixistock

这样想就会清楚：
本题是措施达目的型的，第一句话总括出措施与目的，后面的作为详细的说明。weaken 它目的达不到。就像楼上说的，政府最终是损了农民的利益，为的是是城里加工工厂有活干，从而城市失业率不会上升。E的削弱在于：农民都跑到城市来，因而没有那么多人种cashew了，城里加工厂还是没事干，失业率还是会上升。

sunyan730

d.

e 说越来越多的农民离开土地到了城市.虽然WEAKEN了原文结论.但是原文都是在讨论关税,价格,经济一类的问题.根本没有提到农民在什么地方工作的问题.虽然提到了lack of profitable crops ,但是选项的整体意思是 lack迫使越来越多的农民离开土地到了城市.

D 虽然表面上看没有e好,但是它直接提到了经济问题.工厂提升竞争力也就是和失业率有关.