GWD 求讨论

eshopaholic

Q3.
Mel: The official salary forjudges has always been too low to attract the best
Candidatesto the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has
done nothingto improve the situation, because it was coupled with
a ban onreceiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat:  No, the raise in salary really does improvethe situation. Since very few
judges teachor give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative
effect.
Pat’s response to Mel isinadequate in that it
A.     attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potentialmembers
of a groupby providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B.     mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect ofthat change
C.     attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positiveeffect merely
by pointingto the absence of negative effects
D.    simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence insupport
of thatdenial
E.     assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarilybenefit all members of that group.

sdcar2010

A is the correct answer. We are talking about attracting FUTURE judges.  Who cares about whether current judges teach or not. On the other hand, maybe a few future judge wants to teach or lecture to satisfy their ego or ambition.  So the new ban would turn away some very talented judge candidates in the future.

eshopaholic

merci

lpbird

nice！