Q30:

Editorial:

In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance.  To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply.  However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.  Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

1. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
2. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
3. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
4. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
5. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

   Answer:

如题，谢！

C

题目说： 政府补贴失业的人， 比如每年A元。 政府也补贴低收入的， 一直贴补到低收入的人的总收入A元。 这样失业的人就没有"financial incentive" 去找低收入工作。 （因为反正总收入是A元）

weaken： 找了这种低收入会比失业有 financial improvement

C说，别看现在一样多。 有工作的人比没工作的人更容易找到高收入（financial incentive）的工作。 （因此大家就会骑驴找马而不是待在家里找工作了。） 

要weaken就要打破这个等式，也就是?+low payment+supplement>assistant，这个?是什么呢？就是C中的tend to get higher-paying jobs，一个比较potential的incentive

这题确实有一定难度

我覺得啊~~

應該解釋為因政府要降低失業率，於是發起補助那些有工作但薪資不高的人，可是卻發現補助後的前並無法提高那些有工作但薪資不高的人的收入，所以造成那些原先失業的人更沒有財務誘因去找工作，此題問否定

C選項清楚否定 

因為若那些有工作但薪資不高的人，在繼續去找工作，即使政府補助金在現階段不及那些失業的人的ASSISTANCE，結果再次找到的工作是高薪的機率大於那些沒有工作的人，會造成那些失業的人有誘因先去找工作，因為失業的人知道要先有工作才會有在得到高薪工作的機會。