202. Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? (A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially. (B) The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country’s years of growing prosperity. (C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels. (D) In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls. (E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
答案是E，但B 的解释不太明白 OFFICIAL GUIDE的解释如下 Choice B is not assumed, since the argument would be unaffected even if the population had been increasing.
I have the same doubt about the explanation of OG! Could someone give us a hand?Thanks advance.
But I agree that E is correct answer. The argument tell us that "it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat".If people in gortland who increase their consumption of meat will radically decrease their consumption of grain,the amout of meat will increase.If so , even though per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average,the increase in the production of meat may satisfy the need of gortland. Consequently, the conclusion that gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both will be seriously undermined. No doubt , the contradictory of E will weaken the argument. So , E is an assumption!
另外还有一题OG 195. A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors. The argument above assumes which of the following? (A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have. (B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions. (C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes. (D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions. (E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.
OG解释如下 195. The passage argues that charitable and educational institutions, part of whose income comes from donations, would be negatively affected if wealthy individuals could not count such donations as deductions from their income. The question asks you to identify an assumption of the argument-that is, something that has to be true in order for the evidence presented to establish the conclusion. Choice A is the best answer, since if this statement is false, all wealthy individuals would, even without the incentive provided by federal tax laws, donate as much money as they do now. In that case, the evidence used in the argument provides no support for the conclusion. Choice B is not assumed: the argument need only assume that many institutions depend heavily, but not necessarily exclusively, on donations from such individuals. Choice C is incorrect given that the argument is concerned only with the consequences of the proposed change and makes no assumption about any reasons for making or not making the change. Choice D is not assumed: as far as the argument is concerned, there can be many other individuals who donate money to the institutions. Choice E is incorrect since the argument, being about the consequences of the particular proposed change, does not make any assumption about what alternative changes to the tax laws ought to be made.
B is confusing!The contradictory of B is that the population may either increase or decrease.If the population is increasing , the contradictory of B will be a sound support. But if not,that of B will seriously undermine the argument. So , B is a double-sword!
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-10-29 15:07:00
楼主
