两道OG上的CR_og-131,og-133

wdzc

OG131.
Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure.If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.
131. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?
(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now.
(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.
(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government.
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals' deposits exceed thislimit.
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans involve.
OG的解释是：The argument that deposit insurance,because of its impact on depositor's choice of banks, is partially responible for the high rate of bank failures would be weakened if deposit insurance also prevented certain bank failures.Choice B sugguests that deposit insurance does prevent certain bank failures and is thus the best answer.
我怎么看不出来B选项中deposit insurance能阻止certain bank failures.请mindfree等各位牛牛们指点一下迷津。呵呵！

还有OG133.
133. In 1960, 10 percent of every dollar paid in automobile insurance premiums went to pay costs arising from injuries incurred in car accidents. In 1990, 50 percent of every dollar paid in automobile insurance premiums went toward such costs, despite the fact that cars were much safer in 1990 than in 1960.
Which of the following, if true, best explains the discrepancy outlined above?
(A) There were fewer accidents in 1990 than in 1960.
(B) On average, people drove more slowly in 1990 than in 1960.
(C) Cars grew increasingly more expensive to repair over the period in question.
(D) The price of insurance increased more rapidly than the rate of inflation between 1960 and 1990.
(E) Health-care costs rose sharply between 1960 and 1990.
我觉得C选项也可以。按照一般的常识，如果车祸后，车也得修，必须由保险公司花钱去修呀。或者是我理解错误，injuries 只指人的费用，而不包括车？
多谢

braveMBA

我觉得
1。结论是如果政府不提供保险，那么银行将会确保它的竞争，隐含说将会降低失败。B说，如果没有政府提供保险，那么储户的担心将会导致银行失败，这就WEAKEN了结论。
2。你说的对。INJURIES指的一定是人不是物，如果是物应该是damage.所以，尽量寻找和人有关的答案。这是ETS CR中经常的小把戏，所以不得不仔细读结论

mindfree

1. 完全个人意见.

我不认为B是最佳答案, 但是这里没有其它可选. 原文说high rate of bank failure是insurance造成的. 问weaken. 而B说没有insurance就会有频繁的bank failure.

个人认为最好的答案应该从insurance造成failure这个逻辑关系入手, B并没有否定这个关系. 举个例子: 甲把钱投到股市里,崩盘大跌破产, 但是不投到股市里而把现金藏床底下,通货膨胀100000%钞票成废纸破产, 藏床底下并不能很好的削弱股市造成破产的逻辑关系.

原文就是有没有insurance都fail. 但是没有其它选项相关, 而weaken只要有一点削弱就可选, B就是唯一可选答案.

希望其他人再补充

2. 同意braveMBA. property damage和personal injury是保险的两个不同的部分.

xixi2004

a 选项是不是mindfree说的insurance造成failure? 为什么og说是weakly support the view that insuring deposits contributes to bak filures？请总教头指教。谢谢！

eSpirit

以下是引用mindfree在2003-5-15 14:31:00的发言：
1. 完全个人意见.
我不认为B是最佳答案, 但是这里没有其它可选. 原文说high rate of bank failure是insurance造成的. 问weaken. 而B说没有insurance就会有频繁的bank failure.

个人认为最好的答案应该从insurance造成failure这个逻辑关系入手, B并没有否定这个关系.
原文就是有没有insurance都fail. 但是没有其它选项相关, 而weaken只要有一点削弱就可选, B就是唯一可选答案.

economist的观点为:政府对银行的保险应对现在的高的银行破产率负责（或者现在银行破产率很高是由于现在政府保障了银行的安全性）。要削弱即说现在的(所以我完全同意你说的“B并没有否定这个关系”的说法）破产率高不是由于政府保障引起的。A没有政府保障时的银行破产率比现在高，说明确实可能是由于政府行为引起了破产率的提高，支持了economist的观点；B只说以前怎样怎样，与要削弱的目标还差一点，另外B中failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures的表述（存款户有fears所以会更selective），与economist的观点If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money似乎是一样的，这样B也不是很好地起到削弱作用（？）；C很大部分的人知道他们的存款安全正由政府保障着，所以他们不会去想哪家银行是安全的，与economist的观点一致，起支持作用。

这样理解似乎正确？？

IceOnMe

要削弱即说现在的(所以我完全同意你说的“B并没有否定这个关系”的说法）破产率高不是由于政府保障引起的。A没有政府保障时的银行破产率比现在高，说明确实可能是由于政府行为引起了破产率的提高，支持了economist的观点

A的意思是: 没有政府保障时银行破产率比现在低吧.

我觉得应该从OG的这句入手"The argument that deposit insurance,because of its impact ondepositor's choice of banks, is partially responible for the high rateof bank failures would be weakened if deposit insurance also preventedcertain bank failures"
但还是想不破,就好象 <侠客行>里 众人都知道绝世武功能从石壁的诗里参出,但只有石破天能看出其中道理.

我爱欧洲

我想按自己的理解可能越走越偏，还是往OG的解释上靠吧。.Choice B sugguests that deposit insurance does prevent certain bank failures 。关键如何prevent呢？可能是没有政府保险时，人们因担心不存钱，所以造成银行failure。现在有保险了，人们变得不selective，敢甚至不假思索的存钱，以前的failure都没有了。所以insurance does prevent certain bank failures 。只能这样理解了。

foreinter

以下是引用我爱欧洲在2005-5-9 0:15:00的发言：
我想按自己的理解可能越走越偏，还是往OG的解释上靠吧。.Choice B sugguests that deposit insurance does prevent certain bank failures 。关键如何prevent呢？可能是没有政府保险时，人们因担心不存钱，所以造成银行failure。现在有保险了，人们变得不selective，敢甚至不假思索的存钱，以前的failure都没有了。所以insurance does prevent certain bank failures 。只能这样理解了。

同意这种理解，就是说存款者对存款安全的担心所引起的银行失败比增加保险而使懒得提高竞争力所引起的银行失败更大。好拗口

swlfx

同意爱欧洲。

whoody

偶的感觉就是：

题干：政府保障导致了高破产率：“An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures”，若要weaken，就找他因或相反的结论，找着找着，发现B选项不错，说是没有了政府保障的时候，人们的挤兑导致银行破产。

想法可能太简单，我一开始也做错了，但是看看OG的解释，好像这样比较接近。请随意拍砖！