求助！！PREP08 CR #111

crazysuo

111.       

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.

Helr笔记中是这样解释的：

E. Correct. 没有足够的利润会让很多原本种腰果的农民放弃种植而到城里找工作。该选项涉及“因”的一个能导致结论可信度变化的特点。当农民出口未处理的腰果得到的利润高了，就不会再有农民向城市跑了，甚至还有城市人来种腰果，所以这个性质可能会导致城市里的竞争压力变小，失业率从而变低。显然属于CQ2：干扰因素问题。

为什么农民到城市中去了，反而不会增加城市的失业人数呢？

yanhang

原来的假设：增加关税，cashew只供应国内，而让城市里的processing plants增加，从而政府减少失业率。
（此处最难理解，须读懂文章的意思）
      －－－这里为什么是增加关税，看文章 removing the tariff would hamper the government's efforts to reduce urban unemployment
                 两个否定词， 可改为    增加 the tariff would 增加 the government's efforts to reduce urban unemployment

问题：削弱上面。－－－－同理：为什么上面的假设不成立？

选e   因为：增加关税 让 种cashew的农民减少收入， 从而放弃种地 进入城市， 最终 会增加失业率

Vivian1091

结论：remove the tariff would not increase the unemployment rate in urban取消关税不会增加城市失业率
前提：farmers in rural, unprocessed cn; people in urban, processing cn农民在农村种没加工的cn，城里人在城市加工cn
问加强
E.因为种腰果不赚钱，农民都跑城里了。
这个现象加强了结论，因为反过来说，取消关税-->（农村）种cn赚钱-->（农村）农民就不会跑到城市里-->（城市）不会增加城市的labor-->（城市）不会增加失业率。

crazysuo

Vivian1091 发表于 2013-8-4 10:16
结论：remove the tariff would not increase the unemployment rate in urban取消关税不会增加城市失业率
...

问的是weaken吧！！？？

Vivian1091

您仔细看看我写的内容。

是加强还是削弱不是由 问题中的单词决定的，是由意思决定的。因为这个题目中有个however，所以就反过来了

crazysuo

Vivian1091 发表于 2013-8-4 10:40
您仔细看看我写的内容。

是加强还是削弱不是由 问题中的单词决定的，是由意思决定的。因为这个题目中有个h ...

恩，这点我明白了。但还有个问题，e说的是因为corn没钱赚农民到城里了，单从选项看那应该是会增加城市的失业率啊？

理由是它的变体题：Which of the following, if true, most logically completes the reasoning in the passage?
Kernland’s government restricts the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure a low-cost supply for domestic processing plants.  Though the policy constrains farm income and limits the number of farmers who can profitably grow cashews, the government defends it on the grounds that, since the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the restrictions would hurt efforts to reduce urban unemployment.  However, the policy may actually have contributed to urban unemployment, since __________.
A. a lack of profitable crops is driving many small cashew farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities
B. some of the by-products of cashew processing are used as raw materials by other industries located in Kernland’s cities
C. the government does not place similar restrictions on the export of any crop other than cashews
D. the income earned by workers in the processing plants is generally greater than that earned by agricultural laborers in rural areas
E. without governmental aid in some form, Kernland’s cashew processing plants would not be able to compete for sales in world markets

Vivian1091

我觉得是这道题假设的一个背景。这道题讨论的是就业率。在农村，就是种腰果，这是在农村的工作。在城市，就是需要找工作。

因为农村的工作种腰果 没利润了，所以农民就跑城市了 做城市的工作，如果他们找不到工作的话，就会增加城市失业率。换句话说，人一定要有工作，不管是在农村还是城市。没工作了就一定要找工作，为了养活自己。挣的不多了要找挣得多的工作。。。

你觉得类

crazysuo

Vivian1091 发表于 2013-8-4 14:29
我觉得是这道题假设的一个背景。这道题讨论的是就业率。在农村，就是种腰果，这是在农村的工作。在城市，就 ...

对啊，照你这么说，难道不是农民进城，城市失业增多吗？

huihlin

yanhang 发表于 2014-1-1 05:45
原来的假设：增加关税，cashew只供应国内，而让城市里的processing plants增加，从而政府减少 ...

同意！               

小二郎的兄弟

这道题也是纠结了几分钟。。为积攒人品给后人看吧~

这个题目的 逻辑是：K现在执行的是high tariff来保证nuts都卖到国内的processing plants，虽然说high tariff取消（be lifted）农民可以把产品卖到国际市场有利润，但是however，取消high tariff会让城市里失业率增加因为processing plants都在城市，政府就是增加就业率的这个目的就达不到了。

所以这个题目的观点是：K应该继续执行现在的high tariff对城市就业率有好处，因为取消high tariff会让城市里失业率增加因为processing plants都在城市。

按照Helr提出的逻辑题类型分类，这属于方案推理型，攻击点里有一个叫：方案是否能达到目标？
所以题目问weaken以上观点的，有一种答案可以是：执行high tariff其实对城市就业也有害处，不一定能达到方案。

所以选E，high tariff下农民会来城市找工作，这样也就业率根本提高不了。

大家都700++++~~