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 cashew 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 plants and plastics
B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants
C. More people in kernlandare 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.
原文理解:
提高税额并以世界市场的价格出售给国内加工公司,种腰果的农民会受益。但与此同时,由于腰果加工工厂在城市,增加赋税使政府在城市的降低失业率的计划就被阻碍了。
削弱题解题点:增加赋税,降低失业率的计划如何不被阻碍(甚至有利)呢?
A 腰果加工产生的副产品有经济价值。(没说明与提高失业率有什么关系,无关)
B 其他国家补助他们的工厂。(这个建议不错,但K国有没有实行不知道,无关)
C 种植腰果的人多,加工腰果的人少。(城市失业率和农民多城市人少没关系。无关)
D 以低于世界价格的价格购买腰果对工厂竞价有利。(题目中没说赋税和世界价格的关系,无关)
E 缺乏经济作物使得农民都不种地了,跑城里打工了。(因为增加赋税,所以农民才有活干,不跑到城里给政府的失业率添麻烦,所以增加赋税对降低失业率有利,因此削弱了增加赋税阻碍政府降低城里失业率的论断。)
-- by 会员 1369179610 (2013/1/30 23:36:42)