gwd-12-11 偶碰到的一道难题

rhine521

就是B嘛 

jonathan1987

经济好的时候，25%学生去私立学校，经济不好的时候，这些学生更可能去公立学校。造成学生--教师ratio更大

赞成

tichondrius

关键是,哪里有前提写着这些学生经济不好就一定从私立转向公立?我经济不好,我就不念书了....怎么不可能?

tichondrius

我想知道,现在的GMAT逻辑还符合“白痴”原则吗？我看大家都在妄加猜测？！所有的选项的成立的条件都是“假如。。。，所以就支持/削弱了”，为什么是假如呢？

manxiton

i choose B,因为其他的可以排除，其他选项中提到的pay,和跟以前萧条的对比都与本题无关

zoe2009

I will say choice B.

choice A focuses on "current ratio", nothing to do with economic condition

       B since present economy is strong, people select private school, when situation turns to weak, children will transfer to goverment-funded school---inferred.

       C no change on teacher number in or after recession

       D teachers' income, not the number

       E two concepts: number of school and number of teachers

won872

government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

“regardless of the state of the economy”, therefore economic is not an issue for governmental job

“current student-teacher ratios”, ratio does not change.

25% is attending private high school when the economy is strong at high price

When the economic is weak, these 25% kids may end up attending public school that is for free, by that time, even more teachers are needed.

A： student to faculty ratio is higher compare to recession, worse the argument by proofing that government is substituting the increasing effect in student with decreasing effect in faculty

C: That the number of faculty is higher than recession means the better the economy the more faulty Gov. Public school hire. Gov. job affected by economic condition, counter proof.

won872

Premises: government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Conclusion: any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

“regardless of the state of the economy”, therefore economic is not an issue for governmental job

“current student-teacher ratios”, ratio does not change.

25% is attending private high school when the economy is strong at high price

When the economic is weak, these 25% kids may end up attending public school that is for free, by that time, even more teachers are needed.

Conclusion, If not more, at least as many teachers are needed in government funded school in any future recession. This is the main argument of the passage

A： student to faculty ratio is higher compare to recession, worse the argument by proofing that government is substituting the increasing effect in student with decreasing effect in faculty

C: That the number of faculty is higher than recession means the better the economy the more faulty Gov. Public school hire. Gov. job affected by economic condition, counter proof.

古韵

【结论】

   新法案的生效，使得：即使遭遇经济衰退，也不会导致公办教师人数减少

【问题】

   怎样支持上述这个结论？

   即：怎样才能使 in times of recession,公办教师的人数不减少呢（不变或增加）？

【答案】

   B.现在经济走强，约有25%的学生就读昂贵的私立学校。

【分析】

   对于这部分学生，由于现在经济形势好，所以they can afford to attend such expensive schools.但当未来出现economic downturn时，会出现两种情况：

1.他们可能cannot afford to attend these schools and shift to the gov-funded schools,则：公立学校的学生人数会(+)。为保持 student / teacher 的比例不变，公办教师的人数也定要(+)；

2.他们的父母财大气粗，仍能provide their children with such expensive schools.那也不打紧，这部分学生只是不会转去公立学校，从而不会(+)公立学校的学生人数，但他们并不会(-)公立学校现有学生的人数，因为他们现在不在公立学校读书，未来也不在，那他们对公立学校学生人数的影响就是0，也即，没有了这部分学生，与公立学校现有学生人数相比，其未来学生人数最多就是不变，不会(+)但也没有(-)。一旦公立学校未来的学生人数不变，为保持 student / teacher 的比例不变，未来公办教师的人数也相应不变；

综合上述2种情况，in times of recessions,公办教师的人数要么(+),要么不变，但不会(-).

选B支持了结论：经济衰退不会导致：公办教师的人数减少.

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-1-12 14:27:26编辑过]

bennyczy

选B是大家按照常识判断的结果，如果是这样，这个选项本身就没有意义