再问GWD29--16~求教~~

queenie924

31: GWD-29-Q16

Political Advertisement:

Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership.Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the new jobs created has been higher than that year’s average pay for jobs citywide.So it stands to reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?

A.The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.

B.The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

C.Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.

D.Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.

E.The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city

答案C
看了之前的讨论还是不懂~
说是削弱了~
但是我觉得  题目说 新创造的工作比失去的工作多，新创造的工作工资高于平均工资
而C：失去的工作工资高于平均工资
新创造的工作>失去工作~不是新创造工作的总工资还是会大于失去的工作的总工资么~按道理~题目也没给工资到底大多少啊~所以C感觉没什么道理吧~

我选的B~
因为~平均工资在D执政时最低~~那么新创造的工作的工资高于平均工资也不能说明什么~

hahask

So it stands to reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.
LZ美女要看清楚這個是結論啊~~要根據這個選擇選項
你說的那個B選項 他執政的時候是10年平均工資最低的時候~如果要建立聯繫的話，實際是加强了the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger。10年來最低嘛，他執政了，隨便弄一弄就是穩定變大，所以加強。
而C選項則是根據文中的假設進行的質疑，既然他創造新工作個數大於消滅工作的個數，而且平均工資高於一般水平。就可以推出平均工資升高了~~那麼如果那些被消滅的工資水平也是大於一般水平的話，一進一出，很有可能產生平均工資不變的情況~~這種情況出現了，自然就會削弱So it stands to reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.這句話~~~
個人想法，僅供參考。
PS：很感謝樓主的閱讀邏輯綜合整理~~期待樓主回來報喜~~另外我1號考，也給自己漲漲RP，哈哈