The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been signifi cantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased signifi cantly during the past three years.
(D) The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased signifi cantly during the past three years.
(E) The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.
如果变成has not increased后，你对它取非，就变成装配一台电视的时间增加了，这样的话结论-工人少了导致进口增加了不是weaken了嘛？因为可以说是因为装配电视的时间增加了导致产量变少，进口增加，而不是因为工人减少的原因，这个应该算是它因性削弱吧，这样一来的话，has not increased也算是个假设吧，因为取非后消弱了原来的结论。你那样的支持方法是说证明你的premise-工人减少是可行的，工人减少可以导致进口增加，而我的支持方法是排除它因，说明进口增加是由于工人减少导致的，而不是其他原因，这题怪就怪在两个正好是同一句话相反，所以我不知道是两个都对呢，还是我的想法错了，你可以从排除它因这个角度看看我的看法有啥问题吗，谢谢作者: bah-torontoer 时间: 2011-10-22 06:41
