Q2:

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?

1. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
2. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
3. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
4. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
5. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

答案：E，看了有点糊涂，麻烦哪位nn好心给解释一下，谢谢！！

这个题目是要削弱结论，也就是说取消关税不会阻碍政府在未来５年内降低城市失业率，

Ｅ是从反面来说的，政府现在限制腰果出口，农民利润减少，所以他们就不愿意再种植，转而去城市就业，就会提高城市失业率．

明白了，谢谢！！

但是想明白C,哪里有问题？谢谢!

"会提高城市失业率"不就"阻碍了降低失业率"了吗? 这是加强了原题结论啊!

问题出在 默认了一个assumption:"农民进城绝大多数都找不到工作".

应该这么解释: 农民进城了可能都找到工作,这样随着城市总人口不断上升,而失业的人数还是那么点(即取消关税前就失业的人数+因processing plants倒闭造成的失业人数),那么失业率就逐渐下降,也就没有阻碍"降低失业率了".

     LS应该没有完全理解这道题的意思。

    政府对某物征收关税，以限制出口，（那就是人为降低了农民的收益。）假如取消出口关税的话自然可以提高农民的收入。作者的假设是这个产品的价格上升了之后，处理这个产品的工厂收益降低，从而导致工人下岗，失业率上升。但是作者忽略了失业率的成因。假如这个失业率是因为原来农民没有收益跑到城里导致的呢？