GWD 13 一道诡异逻辑题

呼啸700

T-9-Q2

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashew were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government‘s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

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

1. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing plants and plastics
   
   
2. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants
   
   
3. More people in kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them（我选择的错误答案）
   
   
4. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices
   
   
5. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the cities（答案）
   我就不懂了  农民进城 跟降低失业率由什么关系  NN们解释一下
   
   

sdcar2010

The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of their products to international processing plants instead of domestic processing plants --> lay-offs in domestic processing plants --> higher unemployment rate in urban areas.

E) says if the government do not lift the tariff, more unemployed farmer will go to urban areas and pop up urban unemployement rate.

Therefore, E) points out one cause of the high unemployment rate in the urban area. Lifting tariff could remove that cause. With some luck, the new positions created for homecoming farmers might outnumber the pink slips sent for workers in processing plants!  So the net result of such tariff change might reduce the urban unemployment rate!

Overall, E) makes the orginal argument less likely.

C is out of scope.  The argument focuses on "urban unemployment". Who cares about farmers who stay in the countryside!!! C also has no concrete info about urban employment changes which might be impacted by the tariff.

gots

投鼠忌器的原理。
本来应该用税调节的，但是又害怕影响就业率。于是就不能实行了
我已开始做的时候当成无关内容排除了。。。。。

monica315

The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of their products to international processing plants instead of domestic processing plants --> lay-offs in domestic processing plants --> higher unemployment rate in urban areas.

E) says if the government do not lift the tariff, more unemployed farmer will go to urban areas and pop up urban unemployement rate.

Therefore, E) points out one cause of the high unemployment rate in the urban area. Lifting tariff could remove that cause. With some luck, the new positions created for homecoming farmers might outnumber the pink slips sent for workers in processing plants!  So the net result of such tariff change might reduce the urban unemployment rate!

Overall, E) makes the orginal argument less likely.

C is out of scope.  The argument focuses on "urban unemployment". Who cares about farmers who stay in the countryside!!! C also has no concrete info about urban employment changes which might be impacted by the tariff.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/4 9:16:52)

谢谢你关于E的解释，很明白。现在就是对D有点不理解。D是不是对结论起了部分支持作用？

sdcar2010

The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of their products to international processing plants instead of domestic processing plants --> lay-offs in domestic processing plants --> higher unemployment rate in urban areas.

E) says if the government do not lift the tariff, more unemployed farmer will go to urban areas and pop up urban unemployement rate.

Therefore, E) points out one cause of the high unemployment rate in the urban area. Lifting tariff could remove that cause. With some luck, the new positions created for homecoming farmers might outnumber the pink slips sent for workers in processing plants!  So the net result of such tariff change might reduce the urban unemployment rate!

Overall, E) makes the orginal argument less likely.

C is out of scope.  The argument focuses on "urban unemployment". Who cares about farmers who stay in the countryside!!! C also has no concrete info about urban employment changes which might be impacted by the tariff.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/4 9:16:52)

谢谢你关于E的解释，很明白。现在就是对D有点不理解。D是不是对结论起了部分支持作用？

-- by 会员 monica315 (2011/5/4 5:46:56)

I agree with you on choice D.

joyous314

为什么我觉得D更多的是无关呢，没有提到关于就业率如何