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?
->与the poverty level比较The yearly amount无意义
请教各位XDJM们…
这道我都可排除掉其它选项…只搞不懂C选???
结论是失业的人无诱因去接受政府补助
找WEAKEN为何是C选????
这道题目LZ在版面上找找吧
我印象中就在上个月我还回答过一次:)
结论是:对于失业的人,没有经济刺激以使他们接受相对比较低的工资的工作。
C认为:对于已经受雇的人,其找工作时要求的工资会比失业的人所要求高。个人认为这个地方说明了有经济刺激。如果是这样,失业的人可能还是愿意接受结论中所述的工作,再找工作时会要求更高工资。
C选项说明那些有工作的人换工作会得到更好的工资,就是给那些没工作的人指出了一条明路:入门工资低以后可以换高。所以从长远看还是有financial incentive 的。
Condition: the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed
Conclusion: unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.
People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed, consequently, there is financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. Although the total level of take home pay will be caped by governmental pay subsidies up to a predetermined level, the existing position help you gain an opportunity for higher wage, and such opportunity is not available for current none workers. Why there is no financial incentive.
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/) | Powered by Discuz! 7.2 |