想不通的一道题目

miraere

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?

1. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
2. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
3. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
4. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
5. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

给的答案是E。

论点是撤销关税是阻碍政府降低城市失业率的努力。问哪个WEAKEN了这个论点。

E，很多人因为农业耕种收入低都到城市里谋生，使得城市失业率增加，是加强了论点而不是消弱啊。

想了半天了，很疑惑，NN帮助解答下啊。

我的答案是C。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/7/23 18:30:29编辑过]

netherland

今天刚上完第一节逻辑课，注册了个……大胆解答一下啊

E说的情况实在有关税情况下的。因为本国价格低于世界价格，保留出口关税，cashew的价格上不去，获利少，农民跑去城里，也加剧了城市失业。也就是说，撤销关税可以不让农民工进城，减少城市就业压力，removing the tariff 会 seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment 就不成立了

虚心接受检查~

miraere

netherland,谢谢你的解答。

想确定下，lift这个词表示关税提高吧，关税提高，卖到世界价格，怎么会“more farmers could profit by growing cashews”，因为价格多出的利润和高出的关税可能有抵消啊。。。

netherland

我也只是就题论题，一做深入思考就糊涂了……

要说农民受益不受益，觉得是ambiguous啦。至于这个more，我也是很疑惑它指的是什么……大胆地注意到E选项中有一个“small farmers”，应该是在高关税情况下小农场主会受损，因为他们的腰果只能在国内卖，获利低，所以就弃耕进城了吧 哈哈

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/7/23 23:29:59编辑过]