以下是引用yl1004在2006-12-6 6:50:00的发言:
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.
- those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training
- even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations
- many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations
- after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth
- even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth
答案给的是A,但我觉得投资什么并没有说明regulation和growth的关系,相反我觉得e很好的说明了。 假设是:严格的法规--〉增长下降 事实是:严格法规有高增长 然而,事实并没有显示严格法规促进了增长,所以我们给一个严格法规没有促进增长就很好的说明了问题,所以我觉得此话的双重否定不严格的法规也有增长也就是e.说明了问题
请nn指点一下。。。欢迎大家讨论一下拉
我是这么认为的,读题目前面:imposing strict environmental regulations ==>reduces economic growth 而后面给的fact是:states with the strictest environmental regulations ==> have the highest economic growth 我觉得两者是有区别的,一个是说施行降低增长,而另一个是说有最严格的法规的州,感觉两个说的不是一回事.这样,就可以看出A选项说那些州的增长是因为 invest the most in education and job training,而不是因为impose regulation了.
而E答案,我觉得明显是不对的,结论就是要推翻说impose regulation can stimulate economy, for me, e is out of scope |