从语法区捞出来的逻辑真题一道

horsefish

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to
ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

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

A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints
and plastics.

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew
processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in
Kernland off their land and into the cities.

经过讨论:答案E

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-9-20 21:05:35编辑过]

深海的小美人鱼

我选E

深海的小美人鱼

我选E.

呵呵

MM 好久不见,一向可好?

lawyer_1

我选B。

原文前提：1。K对unprocessed cashew nuts 出口征收关税以确保它们卖给国内加工厂

                  2。不征税，更多FARMERS得利

                  3。所有加工厂在URBAN

结论：不征关税会阻止政府减少URBAN失业的计划。即不征关税（因）会使URBAN失业增加（果）

B。如果政府给补贴，国内加工厂就不会亏本，加工厂的失业就不会增加，WEAKEN结论。B用其他国家的例子说明K国有可能也会给加工厂补贴。

A副产品，OUT OF SCOPE

CE错的原因：结论是关于城市失业的（URBAN），CE选项有关的FARMER的失业跟城市失业没关系。农民进城找不到工作不算URBAN失业人口。而且结论是说不征关税的情况，E说的是征关税（征关税，FARMERS没得利，lack of profitable ）的情况。

D最坏是无关，最好是SUPPORT结论，D说无因（征关税，加工厂能以低于世界价格购买，这点不成立D就是无关项），无果（加工品能卖个好价格，能盈利，工人不用失业）。无因无果是SUPPORT。

horsefish

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to
ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

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

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them

我是这样看此题: (我选C)

减少关税, cashews就都出口了, 加工业的人员就失业了, 于是失业率降低.

C说种植cashews的人比参与加工的人多, 就是说cashews出口关税减少, 大量的cashews出口, 大量的种植cashews的人就有饭碗, 虽然加工业的工人有失业的, 但总的情况就是失业率没降低. (我把种植cashews也当作城市就业, 反正国外的farming也像factory一样)

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-9-20 4:45:28编辑过]

horsefish

以下是引用深海的小美人鱼在2004-9-20 1:17:00的发言：

我选E.

呵呵

MM 好久不见,一向可好?

给公主请安!

公主是问侯我吗?

偶一贯是不被爱的鱼

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-9-20 5:01:03编辑过]

lawyer_1

“但总的情况就是失业率没降低”我明白你的意思，你是说不征税，FARMER就业人多了，加工厂失业的人也多了，但若如C所说FARMER多于加工厂工人，则总的就业人口没减少，WEAKEN结论。问题是结论的urban unemployment 不包括FARMER，而且原文得出结论的理由是 since all the processing plants are in urban areas。特别强调URBAN。农民无论如何是不包括在URBAN中的，至于他们的工厂开在哪里，不知道，也没关系，因为C说的是farming cashews 的农民，是种NUTS的，种NUTS如何能在城市。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-9-20 4:56:41编辑过]

horsefish

可是B实在看起来象无关选项

lawyer_1

WEAKEN 和SUPPORT这两类题有时难把握的地方就是WEAKEN或SUPPORT的力量非常小，但对该题，其它选项能明显排出

ztlbox

E

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in
Kernland off their land and into the cities.
更多的农民因破产涌进城里，虽然他们不被算在城市失业率里，但他们会抢占城里工人的就业机会，造成城里失业率的上升。

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
首先其他国家的情况和k可能不同，subsidize their processing plants 和腰果的加工业不一定有关系。out of scope