ChaseDream
搜索
123
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: caterpillar
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大全-1-16

[复制链接]
21#
发表于 2008-7-29 16:09:00 | 只看该作者

这题俺觉得有问题,

22#
发表于 2008-8-21 16:01:00 | 只看该作者

看了那么多牛人的解释,怎么还是晕乎乎的?!

谁给我浅显的讲一讲啊?!

23#
发表于 2008-8-21 20:49:00 | 只看该作者

这题看来看去觉得就是一道阅读题

neither of them has any control over

直接对应B选项中所表达的two major parties势均力敌的意思,其它都是无关选项

24#
发表于 2008-9-22 16:40:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用mindfree在2004-7-14 21:45:00的发言:

B is the answer. The question says that third party will only attract voters that would have otherwise voted for one party. Therefore, if neither party has majority votes before the third party comes in, neither will have majority afterwards. The third party will take away some votes from one party, say 1/2 of the votes. The results will be 1/2, 1/4, 1/4. Clear?

One suggestion: pls show some respect to people who answer your questions. Lawyer has his ID. Call him "楼上的" does not sound very polite to me. Thanks!

赞啊!!分析得好!!

 

25#
发表于 2009-3-12 12:49:00 | 只看该作者
G
26#
发表于 2009-9-8 15:54:00 | 只看该作者

对于原文的2句话有些不理解:

1)The third-party candidate always attracts some of the voters who might otherwise have voted for one of the two major candidates, but not voters who support the other candidate.

第三党吸引了主要两党的选票,而没有吸引非主要两党候选人的选票。

2)Since a third-party candidacy affects the two major candidates unequally, for reasons neither of them has any control over, the practice is unfair and should not be allowed.

因为第三党对于主要党派候选人的影响程度是不同的,两党之中的任何一个都不可能获得更多的选票,这种让第三党假如选举的做法不合理,且应该禁止。

请NN或者斑竹能帮帮看看我的理解对不对,不胜感激。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-11-4 01:01
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部