gwd-12-11 偶碰到的一道难题

hairicanye

一开始感觉有点摸不着头脑，后来有点感觉了，我觉得是这样的

A：V国政府决定在任何经济情况下都将为所有学生提供免费教育，且学生-老师比例不变

B：V国的教师们不用发愁在经济危机的时候找不到工作

A->B

要加强，则只要从A的角度说明在经济危机时对教师的需求不变或者增加即可

B选项，在经济强盛时由25%的学生上高价学校，则在经济危机时公立学校的学生数量有提高的可能，由于政府承诺师生比例不变，则对教师的需求增加

拙见

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-3-2 21:17:43编辑过]

mythink

以下是引用tichondrius在2008-12-5 15:54:00的发言：
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?

“ regardless of the state of the economy”原文说了 没钱也得念

孔子曰“不念书 弄死你”

balabaladou7

以下是引用lexie在2006-7-14 16:22:00的发言：

需要支持的结论：availiability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools will NOT be reduced.

因为题目中说明了 法律要求student-teach ratio not be exceeded， as to B,既然经济好的时候 有25%上私立学校 那么我们可以想 经济不好的的时候 25%当中的有些学生就要去到公立学校上学 导致公立学校的student人数增加 法律要保持student-teacher ratio不被超 所以就要求增加teacher的人数

我觉得主要是理解这句话 student-teacher ratio not be exceeded...B: student人数增加 必然导致 needed teachers 人数增加 这样availability of teaching jobs就增加了 很好的支持了结论

思路清晰！

balabaladou7

以下是引用mindfree在2004-8-17 0:25:00的发言：

I choose B.

I do not think A and C directly relates to the argument and conclusion here. If you say that we need to make additonal assumption for B to be right, A and C need more assumption. B will then beat A and C because the substantial fee closely relates to recession.

I do not see how A can be right. The high ratio in A can probably prove that the ratio will not be surpassed in case of recession. However, the argument is about whehter the availability of teaching position will be reduced. I do not see how the number of students will be affected by such high ratio in case of recession. Therefore I do not think availability of teacher will be affect. Please let me know if you think otherwise and pls explain.

The explanatin provided by those who picked C is incorrect. Past experience most of the time cannot be used to predict future event unless there is a direct corelation. In this case, the teaching positions are more than before is far from enough to say that the same pattern will repeat in the future. For example, can we say: It rains a lot last year. So it will rain a lot this year. No! Unless we are given a relationship: last year it rains a lot because of XX condition. This year the XX condition will repeat and therefore it will also rain a lot.

D is irrelevant. E is weakening.

thank you. Very good explanation.

lupisces

Conclusion：any future recessions will not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at public schools

As to B, any future recessions will result in more teaching jobs in pubilc schools 

Justin12122

晕死了，我为啥觉得还是C? B是常识么？ 明显有个gap存在的啊。。

C说before recession的时候教师少，after recession（现在）的时候教师多，那就partially说明recession期间教师是增多的。。。。C的话当然也存在其他原因，但是不像B那样有明显的gap，即私立学校学生交钱多，并不能说明recession的时候他们就都去了公立学校了。

kongkong57

a

xiaoniuren

DING

小月公主

支持

hpn1987

我认为是D，属于排除他因。经济不好，教师有可能到工资更高的私立学校，而使公立学校的教师减少。D说公立学校的工资不必私立少，因此排除了这种可能。