Runagia的pension题

shkyxy

Two years ago, the government of Runagia increased by 20 percent the government-provided pensions paid to Runagians over 65.  The aim of the increase was to stimulate the economy in the rural regions of the country, where most pension recipients live.  Statistics, however, show that there has been no increase in economic activity in those regions since then, but that there has been noticeably more spending in the urban areas.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the increase resulted in the unintended state of affairs described?
A. Until the pensions were increased, many Runagians over 65 in rural regions had been receiving support from their children who live in urban areas.
B. The pensions were increased when the number of people below the poverty level in rural areas of Runagia reached an all-time high.
C. City-dwellers in Runagia rarely travel to rural regions of the country.
D. The Runagian postal system is so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks for pension checks to reach recipients in rural areas.
E. On average, the pensions were higher in rural than in urban areas before the increase.
我选了E选项，因为在rural 的老人pension本来就很高，再增加，消费就不会增加，而在城市的老人pension低，增加了消费就增加，不知道这样理解可不可以？

灭绝湿太

“where most pension recipients live”
这句话很关键，就是说大部分养老金的享受者在农村！！

所以，城市消费的增加不可能仅靠小部分享受养老金的城里老人就可以拉动的。

灭绝湿太

个人观点啊，仅供参考

kikisunflower

line of reasoning:

more money is provided to the elders in rural area→the elders are supposed to spend more money in rural area→ecomony in rural area will then be boosted→but it doesn't happend; instead, ecomony in urban area boost→why?

A. the elders in rural area used to live on their children's support→now they receive more money→then they can live on the pension instead of their children's support→however, it's likely that they still cannot afford more consumptions than before. (maybe their children don't support them any more because they have received extra money.)

E. LZ please note that the government doesn't increase pension in urban area.

before increase: pension in rural area>pension in urban area→after increase: pension in rural>>pension in urban area. i can't see any difference between the situations before and after the increase when add E as an explaination.

cherry0326

line of reasoning:

more money is provided to the elders in rural area→the elders are supposed to spend more money in rural area→ecomony in rural area will then be boosted→but it doesn't happend; instead, ecomony in urban area boost→why?

A. the elders in rural area used to live on their children's support→now they receive more money→then they can live on the pension instead of their children's support→however, it's likely that they still cannot afford more consumptions than before. (maybe their children don't support them any more because they have received extra money.)

E. LZ please note that the government doesn't increase pension in urban area.

before increase: pension in rural area>pension in urban area→after increase: pension in rural>>pension in urban area. i can't see any difference between the situations before and after the increase when add E as an explaination.

-- by 会员 kikisunflower (2011/5/7 21:51:34)

做题的时候真心没想到这层上面。。。。会不会想太多呢额。。。= =