GWD-1-13请教

妞妞的牛牛

以下是引用sunday_zhou在2004-11-11 20:49:00的发言：

应该是D啊, 是比较常见的通过percentage混淆事实的题.

突然想起另外一道题,大意是什么什么survey显示喜欢住楼房的人占45%,喜欢住平房的人占20%,剩下的是喜欢住别墅的人35%,所以喜欢住楼房的人是最多的. 其实是不喜欢住楼房的人比喜欢住楼房的人要多(有55%),应该是推不出这个结论的. 和这题具体不相似,但想给大家提个醒:percentage不可轻信啊

同意，是相对数字与绝对数字的混淆问题。

我一开始没看清，糊里糊涂选了A，后来看看A是无关选项。

因为，即使florida比其他州吸引了更多退休者也不能掩盖decrease 3%这个事实，所以也无法削弱结论

oookk

以下是引用bose0008在2004-10-20 21:13:00的发言：

1. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

even though Florida attracts MORE people than does any other state, if the total number of moving retiree decreases siginificantly, according to this 3% decrease, the retirees moving to florida might still decrease(not weaken the argument), not increase!

3% decrease = retiree to florida / all retiree to another state in the country   

BUT IN D,虽然说总的retired人数多了，但是并不一定去florida啊，对不对，所以D是正确答案也有点说不过去呀，这样是不是C更好，我只要说FLORIDA吸引的不是retiree，是tourist也可以啊。不明白 不明白///

oookk

ding

windflower560

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years.  Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

1. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
2. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
3. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
4. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
5. The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.

原文说:退休后去F的人占的比例下降3%---退休去F的总人数/退休总人数  下降

存在两种可能:要么 分子减少,要么分亩增加

D:退休后去其他州的总人数增加 提出另一种解释,导致比例下降 他因解释

这么想不知道对么

windflower560

以下是引用sea-level在2004-10-6 20:32:00的发言：

i prefer D.

percentage decreased-->many businesses cater to retirees-->negative effect on these businesses.

hidden assumption:percentage decreased = the number decreased.

weaken:the number=total * percentage,[ total increased, percentage decreased-> the number not decreased]

我觉得这么想不对,.翻译上面的式子,把文章说的具体带入 就是:退休后去其他州的总人数=退休总数*退休后来到F州的人数,在这里不应用这个等式

windflower560

:the number=total * percentage,[ total increased, percentage decreased-> the number not decreased]

翻译上面的式子,把文章说的具体带入

就是:退休后去其他州的总人数=退休总数*退休后来到F州的人数占总退休人数的比例,在这里不应用这个等式

windflower560

the number=total * percentage,[ total increased, percentage decreased-> the number not decreased]

翻译上面的式子,把文章说的具体带入

就是:退休后去其他州的总人数=退休总数*退休后来到F州的人数占总退休人数的比例

得出 去其他州总人数 =去F州的

我这么理解对么?

huamei

以下是引用windflower560在2005-4-21 9:34:00的发言：

我觉得这么想不对,.翻译上面的式子,把文章说的具体带入 就是:退休后去其他州的总人数=退休总数*退休后来到F州的人数,在这里不应用这个等式

你的翻译不正确.人家的number指的是退休后去Fl的总人数.不是去其他州的

华籍美人

D.去F州的retirees所占百分比下降，但retirees总人数增加了，所以去F州的人数还是有可能增加

而其他答案：

A, 明显是focus对象偏离了，原文是说retired people,而这里是说people；

B, accept employment与原文的retirees没有关系

C,business to tourists与business to retirees不是一个概念，原文的结论是针对business cater to retirees的

E. 说离开F州的退休人员多了，一定程度是support了原文的题目

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-5-21 14:39:31编辑过]

suikyfly

But I don't think D is a correct choice. Even though the total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly, it is still possible that the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased.