国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: oldprep-cr2-45 [打印本页]

作者: psycheps 时间: 2013-3-16 09:12 标题: oldprep-cr2-45

45.

The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year.But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government's huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.

(D) Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar's value.

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.
这题没搞懂求解释啊

作者: fatmoe 时间: 2013-3-17 07:09

Premise:
1) The devaluation of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth
2) If there is no government's huge budget deficit, the prediction alone will not affect the dollar devaluation.
Conclusion: government's huge budget deficit must be decreased to prevent future currency declines
Answer (D) Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar's value.
If D is true, then premise 2 is wrong since apparently the prediction alone can cause the devaluation. So D weakens the argument and D is the anwer

作者: psycheps 时间: 2013-3-17 21:40

感谢大侠还想问一下But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government's huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.
这句话的逻辑意思和语法现象，分析一下这句话的语法结构好吗？

作者: henguc 时间: 2013-3-18 06:41

应该是逗号前面的句子采用了省略if的倒装，分解开来的话：But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar , if it had not been for the government's huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.

作者: hollyyao 时间: 2013-3-18 20:00

那请问B为什么错啊？不是切断了budget deficit 和 slowdown in economic growth的关系吗，也算是削弱吧。。求解释~~谢谢

作者: bontakuner 时间: 2013-3-19 06:46

slowdown in economic growth is irreverent

作者: dadaowuxing 时间: 2013-3-19 20:29

下面说说我的理解~
逻辑链：budget deficit→prediction→currency decline，从这个逻辑链，作者得出结论：如果要控制cd，那么就必须抑制bd
所以说，要攻击作者关于组织货币贬值的结论，就是攻击上面的逻辑链
A: 政府不愿意尝试并不能说明上面的方法没有效果（举个例子，你可以不去尝试小安阅读法，但是你并不能否定它没有效果，毕竟很多CDers受益其中嘛）
B: 这个选项很有迷惑性（我刚开始也错选了…哀…），紧紧抓住上面那个我们所需要攻击的逻辑链，其实bd真正产生的是prediction of a slowdown in economic growth，而非是slowdown in economic growth（举个例子，如果政府现在花在防洪上的资金少了，一些评论家就跳出来说这样不行呀，资金少了洪水就可能泛滥啦，但并不能说洪水泛滥是政府减少防洪资金导致的是吧？）
C: recent prediction之前有发生cd，看起来是和上面的逻辑链矛盾的，但还有一个重要的因素需要考虑，就是说recent prediction之后会不会有cd，或者是之前发生的cd之前有没有earlier prediction,如果有的话，那么并没有削弱，因为还是可以满足prediction→currency decline；另外一个理解就是说这可能只是一个偶然误差，因为它只提到说recent prediction，算是一个特例吧（不过感觉这样说不是很靠谱…但对于D来说，这点就比较好理解了）
D: bd没发生之前，prediction→currency decline这个过程就已经发生了，直接攻击了上面的逻辑链，同时，frequently这个词也暗含了偶然误差是不可能的
E: 这个选项就很无关啦，说其他原因可能产生cd，但并没有反驳作者的逻辑链不可以（还是小安的例子，你在用小安同时有用其他方法，最后V44，但并不能说小安木用噻~）

作者: wudishark 时间: 2013-3-20 06:58

那请问E为什么错？选项说，如在有budget deficit时，除了prediction，其他因素也可以导致贬值。那不就是削弱 budget deficit下降来防止贬值吗？

当然我也知道D看上去更优一点， E有点想不通

作者: ozymen 时间: 2013-3-21 06:40

B -> ecnomic growth slow down =\= future currency decline, so bd cause growth slowdown has nothing to do with fcd
E -> it shows bd + prediction does cause the currency declined sometimes ( in addtion is the key)

欢迎光临国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)