gwd-12-11 偶碰到的一道难题

Pudding

S/T 比例的變化有四種可能:

         (1) S increase, T increase

         (2) S decrease, T decrease (違背論點, 排除)

         (3) S increase, T decrease (違背論點, 排除)

         (4) S decrease, T increase

A. 我本來的想法是, 如果現在的S/T比以前任何經濟蕭條的時候都高, 那麼說明recession的時候S/T是低的, 也就是說recession時的
           老師人數比較多. but this is not correct, 因為題目說明新的條例剛開始實施, 以後S/T比例不能變高, 那麼其實S/T比例就被維持在
           現在這個比以前recession時候的比例還高的位置了 à 只是點出現象, 沒有support到…

B. 我一直沒辦法接受的答案, 可是我覺得我想通了: recession的情況下S會從私立轉向公立, 而在S增加的情況下, T必須增加以維持
           比例, 就算私立的S直接輟學沒有轉向公立, 至少S/T比例沒變 (而因為公立免費, 原本公立的S不會減少.) à 公式(1)
C. 現在公立的T比以前recession前公立的T多, 可是我們不知道接下來會如何. 因為公立免費, 所以公立的S不會減少 (公式4),
            而假如公立的S增加, T勢必會再增加以維持比例 à 這就回到B(公式1)去了…

這題我想了快一個小時, 在A,B,C裡來回打轉, 最後覺得還是B對, 請大家指教...

skyalan

相通了

应该是B。C选项这种类型一般都错，有false analogy的嫌疑

wj007

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.

YOU MISSED SOMETHING HERE!

The regulation mentioned two things: 1. school is free to anyone in any economic situation; 2. the current STUDENT-TEACHER ratio not be exceeded.

Answer is C. C supports the second regulation: keep the current ratio. How? Here is why: when the regulation is enacted, supporter will prefer a BIGGER ratio (less teacher) or SMALL (more teachers) ratio? The answer is small ratio, definitely. What C tells us is the ratio is SMALL comparing with history. Therefore, in the future, as long as the ratio is kept, potentially more teacher will be keeping their jobs.

tqbiao

b

yuliyang

有美国文化在内，很不好说。ets不厚道。

tuzq

只有选B咯，虽然这个答案真的很烂。

shouyang12

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

题目给的是一种普通现象，任何经济衰退的时候，都会在佛吉尼亚州发生。

A  B C E 所讲的原因是有具体时间限制的，所以首先可以排除。

也就是说原因所解释的时间范围比问题所问的时间范围要小。

我感觉是D

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-4-20 21:20:40编辑过]

jfan

I hestantly chose A。My choice base on the sentence in this argument: "Vargonia has just introduced a legal
requirement that ..., and that current student-teacher ratios not be
exceeded." Choice A indicates that current student-teacher ratio is higher than that during the most recent period of eonomic recession. The
choice satisfy the condition of "exceed"，therefore we can expect that
the availbality of teaching jobs at government-funded schools will not
decline or even rise.

However, as mentioned above，I was hesitant because "current
student-teacher ratio not be exceeded" could imply that the ratio will
be valid after the impliment of the legal requirement，and past ratio could be irrelevent with the present one。



Choice B seems to be reasonable. There are 25% of children attend
private schools，which charge substantial fees，and recession will make
some of those students shift to public ones, thus stimulate the need
for teaching jobs。

However, I found two flaws in choice B：

First, there is no clue about the meaning of 25%. Is the porportion related to the argument? OG makes me feel that ETS does not prefer to choices which mention numbers.

In addition,
will recession makes students of private schools shift to public
one？The above argument does not porvide this assumption. Choice B seems
to contradict ETS's preference, because we can suspect that
recession will not affect everyone. Those 25% of families may still be
able to afford the tuition. We can even suspect that private schools
are of better quality, those familities may not transfer their children
to public schools. After all substantial fees do not imply prohibitive
costs.



I personally prefer to choice A, which is not perfect. Choice B is
cogent in some aspects, but it is based on an assumption, which is not
mentioned in the argument.



Please kindly provide your ideas.

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-5-8 0:27:48编辑过]

mmx1122

think B is better. Since the argument is whether the Absolute number ofthe teacher employed is higher, student/techer ratio mentioned in A isirrelevant.

daxia345

我选A

题目说教师不失业的条件有2：“ because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that （1）education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and （2）that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
”

所以要加强就是根据这两个条件进行加强。（2）是说学生/老师比率不能被超过，我理解为不能再增加

A说现在的学生/老师比率已经比recession时高了，暗示即便遭遇recession，此比率也不会再高了，strength

B说学生会增多，此比率增加，反了

C说现在的老师多，意味着将来要减少，比率增加，反了

D irrelavent

E说教师要减少，此比率增加，反了

还是对原文的理解问题