国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: 请教一道逻辑题。 [打印本页]

作者: weixiushiwansui 时间: 2011-3-18 06:54 标题: 请教一道逻辑题。

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?

Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
选E。这个削弱是因果关系削弱吗。。。argument是取消关税导致更多的人失业吗？如果是，这个E怎么就削弱argument了啊？请高手帮我解答一下吧。。。

作者: michael_wind 时间: 2011-3-18 21:02

文章说,
提高关税>提高售价>更多农民受益>更多人种植>更少失业
所以文章结论
更低关税>更多失业
但是注意,文章逻辑中有一个环节就是种植的人数. 文章中有一个默认的假设:农民不种地就在家里歇着(失业)
但是E,说,农民会离开土地,进入城市.所以,低关税确实导致种植人更少,但是,因为不种的人进了城市,所以失业可以并不增加

作者: weixiushiwansui 时间: 2011-3-19 20:07

能否这样解释：
E是即使不取消关税，也会导致城市人口失业。。

作者: weixiushiwansui 时间: 2011-3-20 08:02

lift在这里是取消的意思吧？难道是提高关税更能让农民受益？

作者: gabriel_djh 时间: 2011-3-20 21:44

The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of their products to international processing plants instead of domestic processing plants --> lay-offs in domestic processing plants --> higher unemployment rate in urban areas.

E) says if the government do not lift the tariff, more unemployed farmer will go to urban areas and pop up urban unemployement rate.

作者: weixiushiwansui 时间: 2011-3-21 20:02

The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of th ...
gabriel_djh 发表于 2011-3-20 21:44

恩。你的解释和我想的一样，但是我就不明白，为什么E会削弱。。E说with tariff，会增加失业率，agrument说，without tariff，会增加失业率。所以E就削弱agrument吗？

作者: gabriel_djh 时间: 2011-3-22 06:56

E) points out one cause of the high unemployment rate in the urban area. Lifting tariff could remove that cause. With some luck, the new positions created for homecoming farmers might outnumber the pink slips sent for workers in processing plants! So the net result of such tariff change might reduce the urban unemployment rate!

Therefore, E) makes the argument the author makes less likely.

欢迎光临国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/forum/)