og语文分册69

stevenckguo

69. When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vicious cycle results. Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates, which causes the tax burden on non-evading taxpayers to become heavier. This, in turn, encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income.
The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?

(A) An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers to try to increase their pretax incomes.

(B) Some methods for detecting tax evaders, and thus recovering some tax revenue lost through evasion, bring in more than they cost, but their success rate varies from year to year.

(C)When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue,they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion.

(D) No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax
rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time.

(E) Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of taxation that will cause them to evade taxes.

答案是C
我不太明白……选C是因为lawmaker不会充分考虑逃税导致的税收降低，也就不会为了达到某个税收收入而提高税率，因而就不会产生文中的恶性循环吗？？？

请有思路的童鞋帮帮忙，先谢过了~^ ^~

jasper123

个人理解：
这个循环为:逃税（A1）→提税→弥补损失（A2）

A1和A2分别代表逃税造成的损失和提税带来的净收入
这样的话，
1.when A2 covers A1, the cycle stops!
2. whereas, when A2 cannot cover A1, the cycle continues.
所以选项C就是再说当他们提高税率但造成了A2小于A1（do not allow adequatelytly）的情况就会导致恶循环的产生

stevenckguo

LS 谢谢你的回答
但是我觉得你的逻辑貌似不太对诶
1. 题目问的是“The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?”……就是问哪一个选项能停止这个恶性循环
2. 你说的那个“A1、A2”模型好像也怪怪的，为什么“when A2 covers A1, the cycle stops!”呢？依然会继续恶性循环吧……
3. 我查了下，allow for是指“考虑到，估计到”，allow adequately for应该是“充分考虑到”

这题还是不太明白……
欢迎继续探讨探讨~共同进步^ ^

jasper123

could not result unless=could result if，即这个循环怎么样才能启动

翻了下verbal, 上面的解释不也是说"what must be true in oder for this cycle to occur?"
我那个模型也是建立在“这个循环怎么样才能启动”问题上的： 怎么样才能启动？——收到的钱不够！

stevenckguo

我明白了！
谢谢你的指点：）

另：我有新的想法，和“A1和A2分别代表逃税造成的损失和提税带来的净收入”模型无关，而是在这个税法的制定之处，如果lawmakers考虑到将来的tax revenue有一部分会因evasion而没掉，他们在一开始就会采用较高的税率，来保证就算有evasion，收到的tax revenue也是够多的，这样就不会产生文中的恶性循环；反之，如果lawmakers考虑不足，最后因evasion收到的tax revenue实在太少，钱不够用，就会逼迫他们去提高税率，从而产生恶性循环。

不知道你能看懂我这样的表述么？

annazyan

还是用数学的方式想吧，THIS VICIOUS CIRCLE IS BETWEEN:
TAX EVASION---LAW---TAX EVASION
SO, THE ANSWER MUST CONTAINS THE 2 FACTS..
ONLY B&C HAVE THE 2 FACTS
B IS NOT SUPPORTING
SO, CHOSE C

ouyangchengran

这道题 因果联系题 涉及 lawmaker（law） && tax evader

解法：否定她因  
先看c d e
e无关 干掉
d无law 而且跟increase      tax evader or lawmaker 无关

C项 取反削弱。  如果考虑了损失 就会避免 故而C