标题: 大全-B-8 [打印本页]
作者: Claudinethj 时间: 2011-6-22 07:00 标题: 大全-B-8
这题答案给的D, 不大明白：题干说现行的农业政策是对消费者的惩罚，因为它增加了食物的价格，以及纳税者每年10亿的税额；问支持的?
Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?
I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
农业补贴每年大约需要政府20billion的支出，而食品价格增加12billion; 这个怎么支持的？
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
对于酒精产品每4美元的成本加税，可获利1美元， 这又是怎么支持的呢？
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only（D）
(E) I, II, and III
盼“明人”指点啊！
作者: rebecw 时间: 2011-6-22 20:32
Please see the highlighted:
I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts (costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year) and $12 billion more in higher food prices (increases food prices ).
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4 (institutionalized penalization of consumers ... costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year).
作者: Claudinethj 时间: 2011-6-23 06:36
谢谢回复，可还是笨啊！
再问：能再说说这两个支持中的数字的作用吗？只是给出个具体的数据作为事实支持，还是数字之间有比较关系，而进行支持的？那是怎样的比较关系呢？
作者: xianmengyao 时间: 2011-6-24 06:44
Mainly "给出个具体的数据作为事实支持".
作者: Claudinethj 时间: 2011-6-25 07:01
哦，谢谢，那我是把他想的复杂了，一看到数字就以为有内在的关系，拼命去想怎样的数字变化支持的，害人阿!
作者: kobemvp 时间: 2011-6-26 06:36
对2的加强作用还是不明白，能否麻烦robertchu兄再帮着解释一下？2应该怎么翻译哪？
是说农民伯伯每1块钱的利润，需要耗费纳税人4块钱？这是怎么个支持法哪？
谢谢。
作者: handapink 时间: 2011-6-27 06:36
是呀，II怎么就strengthen了呀？
调查显示 每补贴农民1块钱，就要消耗consumer/taxpayer 4块钱怎么就 strengthen "Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers"了呀。也许根本就没有去补贴农民呢，说不定current farm policy虽然提高了零售价，但是不但不补贴农民，反而要农民除了交税还得去无偿捐献呢。谁说increase food price就是benefit to农民了？按照中国以前的粮食政策，虽然提高了对consumer的价格，可能国家并不涨对农民的粮食收购价。
作者: zjhzkingsam 时间: 2011-6-27 21:12
我认为II不对. 它没说高税收是由政府政策导致的. 8.
Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?
I.
Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II.
According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
III.
The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only（D）
(E) I, II, and III
The answer is D.
我认为II不对. 因为它虽说了消费者的高税收, 但没说高税收是由政府政策导致的.
作者: teddyabc 时间: 2011-6-28 06:38
我觉得2很好理解啊 农民赚一块 纳税人和消费者损失四块 分配不平均 有损耗 但是有一定要这样 就体现penalty了
但是1很模糊啊 单独数字就可以说补贴多和涨价了吗？
| 欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/forum/) |
Powered by Discuz! 7.2 |