求教OG11-55

shuxuehai

B does not weaken, as some people may want to, some may not want to.

The answer to this question could strengthen, and could also weaken.

bunny_piggy

前提： 低收入，有闲钱送小孩子去托儿所（child care）
推论： 政府返还部分金额，所以低收入家庭有了更好的孩子托管服务

直接说前提不成立：Although
the money is to be in the form of a refund that could be spent however
the family wished, it is the availability of additional money that is
the point of the claim.  .

低收入家庭虽然知道花出去的钱会被返还，可是家庭希望有额外的钱（事实上没有钱）先花出去。
-------------------------------------更加简练的分割线-------------------------------------
花了钱，就可以享受服务。
WEAKEN: 根本没有钱花.....

auflute

結論This program would make it possible for all low-income families with children under age four to obtain more child care than they otherwise would have been able to afford.

是在argue该计划能够帮助所有低收入家庭增加对于托儿所的负担能力，make it possible是在讨论可能性。 OG的解释是The claim is made that the program will allow all low-income families to obtain more child care.

所以不是因果结论。所以否定低收入家庭会选择child care够不成削弱

假如结论改成This program would make  all low-income families with children under age four to obtain more child care than they otherwise would have been able toafford.
则应该构成削弱

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-26 18:35:02编辑过]

syxphoebe

菜鸟看法。文中说的是开始这些家庭unable to afford。所以政府通过税收返还款使得家庭able to afford。所以主要问题就在于政府的做法是继续unable还是转而able呢？也就是能不能得到这样一笔资金是本文的重心。所以D最好。

lg77xx

那么D选项，Many....的言外之意就是说还有一些家庭会拿到这笔钱啊，这不也是没有削弱到make it possible么？

个人认为：问题中，most seriously call into Question...

还是比较Some和Many哪个portion更大。

zsy020584

可是答案是B啊？