对了，这个逻辑能帮我看看吗？我还是转不过弯来 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. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument? 政府保护导致银行的失败率更高，因为存款者没有动机去挑选更安全的银行 (A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now. 加强 (B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures. 正确 (C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the government. 加强 (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 this limit. 无关 (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. 讲清一个理论，跟文章的conclusion无关 我觉得B没有削弱啊！！！ -- by 会员 steinlala (2011/3/26 8:30:07)
你把B翻译过来就懂啦~~~我就直译一下啊，别笑：当政府不再保险这些存款，更频繁的银行失败会发生，因为存款者害怕在银行失败中损失
原句是说，政府保险，则人们不挑选，则银行容易失败。 B说，政府不保险，则人们害怕损失，则银行容易失败。这不是正好和原题是反着的么~~~ | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
楼主
发表于 2011-3-26 08:23:08