- UID
- 779686
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-7-11
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
5. Politician: All nations that place a high tax on
income produce thereby a negative incentive
for technological innovation, and all nations in
which technological innovation is hampered
inevitably fall behind in the international arms
race. Those nations that, through historical
accident or the foolishness of their political
leadership, wind up in a strategically
disadvantageous position are destined to lose
their voice in world affairs. So if a nation wants
to maintain its value system and way of life, it
must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed
30 percent of income.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the
politician’s argument EXCEPT:
(A) The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent
before taxation begins to deter inventors and
industrialists from introducing new
technologies and industries.
Actually, this choice weakens the argument.
(B) Making a great deal of money is an
insignificant factor in driving technological
innovation.
It has the same meaning as the conclusion. If people can be taxed less, they will do more with innovation. So it is the best answer.
I miss the meaning of ‘insignificant’, considering it refers to important. However, it is the opposite.
(C) Falling behind in the international arms race
does not necessarily lead to a strategically
less advantageous position.
Actually, this choice has the opposite meaning of the argument, thus weakening the conclusion.
(D) Those nations that lose influence in the world
community do not necessarily suffer from a
threat to their value system or way of life.
From the argument we know if a nation does something wrong, it will lose its influence in the world community, but we do not know what would happen if a nation lose its influence.
(E) Allowing one’s country to lose its
technological edge, especially as concerns
weaponry, would be foolish rather than
merely a historical accident.
The argument talks about if a country wants to retain its value system and way of life, rather than allow one country to lose its technological edge.
In the argument, the politician points out that historical accident or foolish would contribute a disadvantageous position. And this choice reveals that foolish would be the real factor, rather than merely a historical accident. So it does not weaken the argument.
17. (27669-!-item-!-188;#058&003302)
Urban air contains more sulfur dioxide than does rural air, and plants in cities typically grow more slowly than do plants in rural areas. In an experiment to see how much of the difference in growth is due to sulfur dioxide, classes in an urban and a rural school grew plants in greenhouses at their schools and filtered the greenhouse air to eliminate sulfur dioxide. Plants in the urban greenhouse grew more slowly than those in the rural greenhouse.
Which of the following, if true, would it be most important to take into account in evaluating the result?
(A) The urban school was located in a part of the city in which levels of sulfur dioxide in the air were usually far lower than is typical for urban areas.
Because the argument has referred that sulfur dioxide in the greenhouses would be eliminate, this choice does help to evaluate the result.
(B) At both schools, the plants in the greenhouses grew much more quickly than did plants planted outdoors in plots near the greenhouses.
This choice does not solve the difference in the experiment.
(C) The urban class conducting the experiment was larger than the rural class conducting the experiment.
The same to B.
(D) Heavy vehicular traffic such as is found in cities constantly deposits grime on greenhouse windows, reducing the amount of light that reaches the plants inside.
It helps to evaluate the result by introducing other factor that would influence the growth of the plants. So it is the best answer.
(E) Because of the higher levels of sulfur dioxide in the air at the urban school, the air filters for the urban school's greenhouse were changed more frequently than were those at the rural school.
Actually, this choice makes the argument more contradictory.
18. (27717-!-item-!-188;#058&003330)
Many small roads do not have painted markings along their edges. Clear edge markings would make it easier for drivers to see upcoming curves and to judge the car's position on the road, particularly when visibility is poor, and would therefore seem to be a useful contribution to road safety. However, after Greatwater County painted edge markings on all its narrow, winding roads, the annual accident rate along those roads actually increased slightly.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the increase in accident rate?
(A) Greatwater County has an unusually high proportion of narrow, winding roads.
This choice does not help to solve the contradiction.
(B) In bad weather it can be nearly as difficult for drivers to see the road as it is at night.
The same to A.
(C) Prior to the painting of the edge markings, Greatwater County's narrow, winding roads already had a somewhat higher accident rate than other Greatwater County roads.
The same to A.
(D) Many of the accidents on narrow, winding roads involve a single vehicle veering off the road, rather than the collision of two vehicles.
The same to A.
(E) After the markings were painted on the roads, many drivers who had gone out of their way to avoid driving on those roads at night no longer did so.
If there are more drivers on the narrow roads after Greatwat Country painted edge markings on all its roads, the occurrence of accidents will rise naturally. So it is the best answer.
19. (27995-!-item-!-188;#058&003473)
Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
There is no need to assume the situation.
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
Even though the opposite would happen, the argument still could not be justified.
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
Although it seems to be valid at first glance, a more thorough analysis reveals that this choice cannot help to justify the argument.
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
The same to A.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
This choice is important for us to justify the argument. So it is the best answer.
20. (28411-!-item-!-188;#058&003617)
For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from the many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accommodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?
(A) The exhaust from Palitito's few automobiles is not a significant threat to Palitito's buildings.
Actually, this choice weakens the argument.
(B) Palitito's Renaissance buildings are not threatened by pollution other than engine exhaust.
The same to A.
(C) Tour buses typically spend less than one-quarter of the time they are in Palitito transporting passengers from one site to another.
Although it seems to be irrelevant at first glance, a more thorough analysis reveals that if tour buses really spend less time to transport passengers from one site to another, more pollutants would be reduced through parking. So it is the best answer.
(D) More tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.
We may think it is helpful for us to evaluate the argument, but it is not as sufficient as C.
(E) Some of the tour buses that are unable to find parking drive around Palitito while their passengers are visiting a site.
The situation has been referred in the argument. Besides, even though some tour buses cannot find parking, the situation does not necessarily support the argument.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-11-24 16:18:55
