ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: joywzy
打印 上一主题 下一主题

请教大全-10-10,大全-10-15

[复制链接]
11#
发表于 2005-2-26 17:20:00 | 只看该作者

关键是cost的理解,所谓insurance company的cost实际上就是保险公司赔给投保人的钱

真是一語驚醒夢中人!! 謝謝colacat mm, 原來我剛好理解反了...

12#
发表于 2005-2-27 20:08:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用小女公子在2005-2-25 13:17:00的发言:

为什么10题的E不可以呢?


relief引发了价格上扬,购买者为此遭受了损失。因为缺少an amount at least equal to
the reduction in the price of that home-
owner's solar-energy system installation.
这个假设吗??



借人家的楼……继续……


汗颜中

13#
发表于 2005-3-1 12:25:00 | 只看该作者
up
14#
发表于 2005-8-11 04:49:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用mindfree在2003-4-22 20:23:00的发言:
1. 羊毛出在羊身上. 在美国tax是个很敏感的问题. Government revenue comes largely from corporate and individual taxes. 不明白为什么美国人明知道要自己pay the bill for the war还那么热心打Iraq. Anyway, tax relief means reduction in corporate taxes for solar industry, and it might mean that the government is using the fund originally available to benefit homeowners to subsidize the industry. 所以一方面homeowner获得了减价(pros), 一方面tax relief可能导致他们其它利益的减少(cons). 既然结论是总体上不benefit homeowner, 必然是cons outweigh pros. 既答案A.

A很明显, 说明了三方的利益关系. 其它选项都不全面或无关.

2. 保费和mileage无关, 既然说开车少(below average mileage)的保险费subsidize开车多的, 说明实际成本开车少的要低于开车多的. 举例, 如果说咱俩去吃buffet, 我们付一样多的钱, 结论是我赚的弥补了你亏的,为什么?应该是我吃的比你多.

饿了, 举完此例更饿.


Mindfree解释得很清晰.


对于第10题, 答案A没问题. 但总觉得tax relief would cause the homeowner to lose不符合实际情况. 因为实际生活中有没有tax relief对homeowner而言都不影响缴税的. 反而,因为tax relief的存在, homeowner pay lower price.


请指正.

15#
发表于 2006-8-25 17:17:00 | 只看该作者
up
16#
发表于 2006-8-29 16:16:00 | 只看该作者

苦思冥想的题,被mindfree只言片语给解决了。赞!

17#
发表于 2006-9-19 13:42:00 | 只看该作者

mindfree, 牛!

俺再理解理解.

18#
发表于 2006-10-19 10:20:00 | 只看该作者

大全-10-10.    Any tax relief received by the solar industry would not benefit the homeowner who installs a solar-energy system. Even though homeowners would pay a lower price for solar-energy system installations because of this tax relief, with the government paying the balance, government revenues come from the public.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) The tax relief would cause the homeowner to lose, through taxes or reduced government benefits or both, an amount at least equal to the reduction in the price of that homeowner’s solar-energy system installation.

(B) The tax relief that would be received by solar-energy industries would not be offered at the same time as any tax relief for other industries.

(C) Advertisements of the solar-energy industry, by failing to identify the source of government revenues explicitly to the public, mask the advantage the industry receives from the public.

(D) Homeowners generally believe that they benefit from any tax relief offered to the solar-energy industry.A

(E) Tax relief would encourage solar industries to sell solar-energy systems at higher prices.

with government paying the balance,banlance指的什么?


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-19 16:08:34编辑过]
19#
发表于 2006-10-19 16:09:00 | 只看该作者

with government paying the balance,banlance指的什么?
            

20#
发表于 2006-11-1 15:55:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用晴天小狗在2006-10-19 16:09:00的发言:

with government paying the balance,banlance指的什么?
   

安装费前后变化的差价

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-13 04:24
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部