ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2472|回复: 6
打印 上一主题 下一主题

一道PREP逻辑题~另外,求PREP逻辑分析资料~

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-10-26 16:44:30 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式

86.   (24835-!-item-!-188;#058&001244)Whichof the following most logically completes the passage?
Concernedabout the financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government ofRunagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-providedpension paid to all Runagians over 65. Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and theincrease has been duly received by all eligible Runagians.  Nevertheless, many of them are no better offfinancially than they were before the increase, in large part because__________.
A.they rely entirely on the government pension for their income
B.Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash apension check
C.they buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation
D.the pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below thepoverty level reached an all-time high
E. in Runagia childrentypically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough toprovide them with a comfortable living
答案是E ,我选的是C,记得在OG上的答案应该是接近C的,而且我怎么都理解不通为什么是E呢?孩子们提供给老人只够生活的费用,那发了额外补贴应该是能够改善生活呀,无法解释文中的矛盾~求NN指点下~
PS:另外,请问谁有PREP的逻辑分析资料,求链接~~
谢谢各位好心人啦~~
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2011-10-26 17:26:28 | 只看该作者
注意理解:but only by enough toprovide them with a comfortable living
pension提高后,supplement就降低了,老人还是就那么多钱(pension+supplement)。所以they are no better offfinancially than they were before the increase
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-10-28 16:38:49 | 只看该作者
注意理解:but only by enough toprovide them with a comfortable living
pension提高后,supplement就降低了,老人还是就那么多钱(pension+supplement)。所以they are no better offfinancially than they were before the increase
-- by 会员 fdunan (2011/10/26 17:26:28)

哦~这样我能理解E了,但C为什么不对呢?老人买的东西通胀的程度比平均通胀厉害,那不就也会造成文章所说的情况吗?
地板
发表于 2011-10-29 02:01:54 | 只看该作者
注意理解:but only by enough toprovide them with a comfortable living
pension提高后,supplement就降低了,老人还是就那么多钱(pension+supplement)。所以they are no better offfinancially than they were before the increase
-- by 会员 fdunan (2011/10/26 17:26:28)


哦~这样我能理解E了,但C为什么不对呢?老人买的东西通胀的程度比平均通胀厉害,那不就也会造成文章所说的情况吗?
-- by 会员 shinell2009 (2011/10/28 16:38:49)


前提Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible,所以C项的前提条件不满足,根本不需要考虑,排除。
5#
发表于 2011-10-29 09:20:18 | 只看该作者
C选项是tend to  未来的事情和现在无关。直接排除
6#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-2 14:38:15 | 只看该作者
哦~一语道破~谢谢啦
7#
发表于 2012-5-1 11:04:09 | 只看该作者
前人栽树后人乘凉啊……受益了……
老是把 no better off 想成worse……其实可以喝以前水平一样啊
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, 2025-9-30 16:15
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