gwd30-15

huangruiyan

请教一道题

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?

 

A.   Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.

B.    Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.

C.   More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.

D.   Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.

E.    A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

答案是E，但是不理解，期待答复。。。。。

fly2010carol

俺的思路：

取消关税会有利于农民，但会造成城市失业率上升，

削弱方向：（1）取消关税不会造成城市失业率上升

                 （2）不取消关税才会造成城市失业率上升—因为农民没有收益都跑到城里来了。

答案选了（2）E

关键在于urban这个词

davidcymac88

现在的城市失业很大一部分是由于农民觉得种nut不赚钱就跑到城里来了，如果取消关税，这些人就会回去种田，失业率就不会上升了

edmundshi

不知道是不是我读题干的时候理解有错

我怎么觉得是“提高关税会有利于农民（If the tariff were lifted...more farmers could profit）,取消关税会使城市失业率升高（hamper effort to reduce urban unemployment）”

E中，关税升高=>农民lacks profitable crops=>到城市去=>（更多的人争夺岗位使）失业率上升

     关税取消=>（由题干直接得）失业率上升

E的理由完全的weaken了这个论证过程

xwsh0325

我也是觉得关税提高会有利于农民啊

楼上"关税升高=>农民lacks profitable crops"是怎么推的?