GWD-29-Q8 填空题， 我觉得C也挺对的呀， SOS..........

marque

16: GWD-29-Q8

Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?

According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth.This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth.This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.

A.those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training

B.even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations

C.many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations

D.after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth

E.even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth

题干说：“严格的环境法规有着高的经济增长率，然而严格的法规并不能促进经济增长，是因为：”
我想的是颠倒因果。是经济高增长才使得政府有更多的精力搞严格的环境法规。
也就是说如果经济低迷，那么政府就没有精力去搞严格的环境法规了，那么C选项正解啊。

但 给的答案是A. 说是他因导致，但我觉得A是无关的呀，文中是讲经济增长与环境法规严格度的关系，A扯到投资于教育之类的东西方面，题干没有明确提到投资于教育和工作就能增长经济额。
望大侠们解惑。  谢谢力！！

sdcar2010

Common sense: Investment in Education and Job Training promotes growth in Economy.

sdcar2010

C only says the those governments are CONSIDERING deregulation. It does not prove that deregulation PROMOTES or WILL PROMOTE growth.

marque

C only says the those government are CONSIDERING deregulation. It does not prove that deregulation PROMOTES or WILL PROMOTE growth.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/9/20 21:16:48)

大神驾到，感激不尽。
那sdcar的意思是相比于C来说，A是实实在在已经做了的事情，比C的considering更有说服力？
也就是说经济越是高速增长，政府制定了更加严格的环境法规 优于 经济越是高速增长，政府更加倾向于制定更加严格的法规。
也就是倾向性是一回事，做没做是另一回事，是这样的吗？
A的假设：投资于教育、就业会促进经济增长。
我觉得C 这里也是有一个假设：政府一般考虑的事情就是将要采取行动的事情。
是因为C的假设没有A更加common，因此排除的C吗？？

sdcar2010

There is another facet of the problem one needs to consider: the main conclusion.

The author agrees with the widely held hypothesis and he is trying to refute an undermining evidence (most strict regulation is associated with the highest growth.) His conclusion is that "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth," and your job is to find a premise which supports this main conclusion.

If you choose C, you are against the author's conclusion.

marque

There is another facet of the problem one needs to consider: the main conclusion.

The author agrees with the widely held hypothesis and he is trying to refute an undermining evidence (most strict regulation is associated with the highest growth.) His conclusion is that "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth," and your job is to find a premise which supports this main conclusion.

If you choose C, you are against the author's conclusion.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/9/21 1:08:17)

Thanks,  sdcar
作者的结论是“例子不代表严格的法规促进经济增长”
支持作者的前提可以是“经济增长能够促成严格法规”（颠倒因果）
我觉得C也是一个直接前提的推论，前提就是：经济高增长，使政府愿意制定更严的法规。这个前提的推论就是 经济低增长，政府从而考虑制定宽松的法规。
是不是前提的推论最好不选呢？ 我更加纠结了.....

上邪

好帖子。。。这题错好几遍了。。。= =

向畑

我当时看到这题想的就是：应该是经济好的地方对环境保护得好（Common Sense），所以，当经济不好的时候，就可以考虑放松对环境的管制（比如开办点污染企业）来刺激经济。 这确实是一个因果颠倒。A也很有道理，他因削弱。但在第一次看到这个题的时候，对比AC，觉得C更靠谱，这感觉要怎么纠正呢？

向畑

发现C更正确，看错题干了。。。
H1：严格的环境规定降低经济增长。
F1：(undermine H1)有最严厉的环境规章制度的州也有最高的经济增长率。
Conclusion:F1不能表明regulations促进了经济增长，因为....  
感觉从这个逻辑链下来，下面应该是说其他东东促进了经济增长，A就很合适。 我个人觉得，虽然这个题是WEAKEN，但并没有探讨经济增长和regulations谁引起谁。比如将结论反过来，F1表明regulations不能促进经济增长，A也可以支持这个结论，而C的否定：那些经济下滑的州没有考虑放松他们的环境政策，跟这个无关啊~ 不知道这样想对不对。

向畑

另外，纵观H1，F1，Conlusion,都是在讨论环境规定对经济增长的影响作用，从这个角度看，C确实是无关的
但这个细细分析能感觉出来，但实战做题的时候估计还是得错~