ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska's government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government's plan is obviously working.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

正确答案: D

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2463|回复: 5
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD6-Q20求救!!!

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2012-3-26 16:14:53 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.  Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A.    A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
B.    Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government.
C.    The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.
D.    Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
E.    Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2012-3-26 19:11:16 | 只看该作者
答案是什么呢?是B么?
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2012-3-26 19:16:48 | 只看该作者
是D,我选的也是B~
地板
发表于 2012-3-26 20:42:26 | 只看该作者
哦~~我想,似乎应该这样理解:
首先,要弄清题目的逻辑链:政府计划鼓励居民增加储蓄—因为special accounts里积聚了许多钱(原因)—所以,政府的计划(鼓励居民增加储蓄)明显地实现了。
逻辑链也可以这样写:因为special accounts里汇集了许多dollars—所以,便可认为居民增加了储蓄。

理清了逻辑链,便很容易看出来选项D为什么削弱了argument:
选项D说,许多居民将原账户中的储蓄,转移到了special accounts里,这个过程,只是美元从一个账户转移到了另一个账户,总的savings不变。因此,居民的总储蓄并未增加,政府的计划并没有work。

关于选项B:
“已经将钱存入另一个免税账户的居民,并不能将钱转到special accounts里”。其实,单独看,该选项也是对的。但是放在这里,与原文内容无关。因为,它只是指出了该plan的一个弊端,与上面的逻辑链并无关系,也不能推翻上面的逻辑链。因此,可以认为是无关选项。
如果将原文的首句话改为:...a plan to enable citizens of L to increase the amount of money they put into the special accounts....   B选项就对了。

看来,做此类题时,要先写出逻辑链,所选的答案,要能推翻逻辑链,而不是简单地对结论进行否定。刚才的B选项,就只是简单地否定了结论,但没有推翻逻辑链,所以就不对。。。。
5#
发表于 2016-7-26 22:46:04 | 只看该作者
xn8510 发表于 2012-3-26 20:42
哦~~我想,似乎应该这样理解:首先,要弄清题目的逻辑链:政府计划鼓励居民增加储蓄—因为special accounts ...

我当时想的是B 说那些把钱的存在免税账户的人就不能用这个特别账户了,所以说明推出这个特别账户的计划就不奏效。
但是被你点醒了:该方案的目的是要 :【增加公民储蓄】
所以B只能说明有些人享受不了特别账户,而不能从宏观上达到增加公民储蓄
6#
发表于 2016-7-26 22:52:19 | 只看该作者
结合楼上的解答 贴出自己的解释:
政府计划鼓励居民增加储蓄—因为special accounts里积聚了许多钱(原因)—所以,政府的计划(鼓励居民增加储蓄)明显地实现了。 【Argument:增加公民储蓄】
逻辑链也可以这样写:因为special accounts里汇集了许多dollars—所以,便可认为居民增加了储蓄。

选项D说,许多居民将原账户中的储蓄,转移到了special accounts里,这个过程,只是美元从一个账户转移到了另一个账户,总的savings不变。因此,居民的总储蓄并未增加,政府的计划并没有work。

而B 说那些把钱的已经存在免税账户的人就不能用这个特别账户了,所以只能说明推出这个特别账户的计划就不奏效,有些人不会往里存钱。
但是该题目是要削弱 的argument是【增加公民储蓄】,而非 有没有必要【实施该方案】
Key:D

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, 2024-11-27 07:58
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部