GWD4-Q14， 求各位大拿更深入见解

Jae230

GWD4-Q14:

Political Advertisement:

Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership.Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office.So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?

A.The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure.

B.Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

C.Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.

D.The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

E.The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

这题我也知道选D，用排除法我也选的是D，但是D翻译过来是：M D任期内消失的工作的平均工资与城市平均工资大体相当。 这句话从哪里加强啊？ 题目的结论是：在MD任期内，平均工资水平提高了。 与D有什么关系？
求助各位大拿了。不要用反证法，我想知道从正面怎么推出来D加强了题目？谢谢啦

sdcar2010

This is a math question.

Premises:
1) more jobs created than were eliminated
2) the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year

Conclusion:
the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger

Notice the scope shift from premise 2 to the conclusion. If the average pay for the eliminated jobs are much higher than that for the new jobs, the conclusion does not hold. Imagine if all CEO's are let go and all the new jobs are for McDonald's.

D) fixes that problem.

Jae230

恍然大悟！茅塞顿开啊！！！ 楼上N人。那个麦当劳CEO什么的例子非常好！

ruirui_hsu

I have notice the 2 premise. but i still have a question.

Why not A? just  because A is lack of information about average wage of people who lose jobs?

Jae230

I have notice the 2 premise. but i still have a question.

Why not A? just  because A is lack of information about average wage of people who lose jobs?

-- by 会员 ruirui_hsu (2011/7/7 20:43:36)

因为A选项只是对M任期内平均工资的比较，并不能说明M任期内的平均工资就高于前任。比如说前任平均为2， M前期为1，后期为2.

sophiewangapo

嗯，懂了，谢谢沙发。