这么有争议的一道题居然没什么人讨论过。。。

sunzhaoyang

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?解释

Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pension paid to all Runagians over 65.  Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians.  Nevertheless, many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________.

A.        They rely entirely on the government pension for their income. partly helpful也是好的

B.         Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check

C.        They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation ？？？

D.        The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high？？？

E.         In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living？？？

我觉得AB是无关选项，但CDE我觉得都可以解释

C：虽然整体物价没有上升，但老年人用品涨价了，所以老年人并没有以前富有

D：虽然养老金总量增加了20%，但人口可能增加了100%甚至更大，所以没个老人分到的更少，并没有更富有

E：老年人的收入假设只来自政府和儿女，儿女只负责老人能正常生活，所以政府多给了孩子就少给了，结果老人拿到的钱不变。

请问我的解释有什么问题吗？对了答案是E

suzy2728

引起通涨了，然后政府加了一点点钱，但是儿女的钱都不值钱了，所以给同样的数额实际上是少了，所以没质的飞跃。

zhongtiangg

原题的条件是"no better off financially than they were before the increase"

在C,D的条件下，生活状况其实是不确定的，有可能变好，可能不变，也有可能减少。

E答案则只有一种可能

lihanljz

我的理解是：

C：in times of inflation不成立，因为原文中说inflation has been negligible,也就是根本没有发生通胀。所以C是无关选项。

D：句子是不是应该这么理解：当pension增加的时候，是老年人口最多的时候；但并没有说老年人口在两年内继续增加，所以两年前老年人口多不多，与pension的效果并没有关系。因为，两年前贫困人口是最多的，那么pension也可以给每一个贫困人口。

zuozuox

C. out of scope. 因为本题不考虑inflation
D. 不确定。老人人数最多，太笼统，如果人数比两年前多20%，则和政府的20%抵消，如果人数多不了20%。。。如果人数多于20%。。。