请教：GWD-2-12

tqbiao

Les说得好

blueshandy

个人感觉，应该选C。

因为，虽然题目中有说通货膨胀是可以忽略的，可是C中的答案也说了，他们买的东西是以成几倍于通货膨胀的速度涨价的。这样的话，他们的pension是否还是可以cover同膨的影响就不得而知了。而E中的答案说，他们是由孩子供养的，那拿到increased的钱后，又由于文中给出的两条。生活应该好的啊，并不能解释为什么生活还是和以前一样。除非，说他们的孩子在pension increased 后，给父母的钱少了，这样倒可以起解释的作用了。

欢迎指教。谢谢

new_new

以下是引用LES在2004-8-26 20:48:00的发言：

谢谢lawyer，终于搞明白了！

E的意思就是孩子们给父母的补助是在一个标准下补足差额。而这个标准在政府的措施前后没有发生变化。

咳，逻辑问题永远都出在阅读理解上！

同意此说法，这里的supplement这个词理解很关键！

hedonism555

My personal understanding is,

the real critical word instead is " comfortable " which is too ambiguous to provide any definitive standard. How much can be called as " a comfortable life"? Will the elder people in this argument live in such a way after being supported with additional pension ? Nowhere in the argument ensures us the effect. ( dont take it for granted for yourself) Supposed that the inflation is so high dring following years that, even with the increased pension, the elder still remain far below the comfortable living line, then their children cannot withdraw their support, right ?

inflation in the intervening period has been negligible ,  to me,  that means 20% increased pension is alway based upon a set level of income before inflation regardless how much it is inflated in following years. So, the overall amount of increase will be the same throughout the intervening period.

Therefore, only C offer a sufficient explanation to complete the argument. Under that cricumstance, price hike of the products commonly consumed by the elder offset the increased pension, thus making elder people no financially better.

E is possible but not a definate explanation.

Dennies

我同意D

开始时我选的C,但仔细看C选项后发现其表达的重心有偏差,They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation是从主观上来讲老年人的行为,他们自己想买价格增长速度快的商品并不说明他们没有从政策上得到好处.如果C选项改成the price of the most goods tend to rise fast in the inflation,则该选项可说明一定问题

BUT,文中说到Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible,所以C选项还是不很好

对于E,我个人很赞同上楼所说,conmortable living在文中没有明确交代,可看为无关选项

望指教,谢谢

huamei

依然迷糊中,看了那么多讨论

ethyl

sum:

AB根本说不通

C：否定前提，错！一看到应该立刻排除；注意原文用的是negligible，意为“可忽略的”

D：事实上已经增长了；D提出了增长的条件，无关

E：解释了为什么no better off，因为老人得到的pension两部分组成：政府直接给老人的、政府通过儿童给老人的；如果政府直接给的增加了，那么儿童那部分就会相应减少。

nickt

同意E。前提中提到“confitable”，结果是“no better off”。E寻找他因的说法符合GMAT的出题思路。即老人的总收入没有增加，即使政府增加他们20％，因为他们的子女减少了给老人的补助，只是确保老人“confitable”。结果是“no better off”。C的错误在于模糊－如果物价上涨只有10％，还是“better off”；如果上涨“30％”，就不是“confitable”

taraGMAT

D更像一个考点。我选E.

E要绕那么大一个弯子，而且原文中间也没有提到pension increase一定会导致子女的收入下降啊，比如提高税收什么的来募集。