GWD-28-Q23

WALLMAGE

1.
GWD-28-Q23
Goronian lawmaker: Goronia’s Cheese Importation Board, the agency responsible for inspecting all wholesale shipments of cheese entering Goronia from abroad and rejecting shipments that fail to meet specified standards, rejects about one percent of the cheese that it inspects. Since the health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that one percent would be negligible, whereas the cost of maintaining the agency is not, the agency’s cost clearly outweighs the benefits it provides.



Knowing the answer to which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the lawmaker’s argument?

A: Are any of the types of cheeses that are imported into Goronia also produced in Goronia?

B: Has the Cheese Importation Board, over the last several years, reduced its operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies within the agency itself?

C: Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Cheese Importation Board deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese to Goronia?

D: Are there any exporters of cheese to Goronia whose merchandise is never rejected by the Cheese Importation Board?

E: How is the cheese rejected by the Cheese Importation Board disposed of?




Answer is C.  

Is this questiong about : strengthen the conclusion?  I guess this 750 stuff.

genius1824

有没有朋友觉得A也可以呢？

如果这些cheese国内都能生产，那么，这个机构reject掉的那些不合格的cheese一样国内会提供，岂不是，他们的rejection是无用的？

就C而言，这个机构有没有deter那些出口商把不合格的cheese运到G国来，和这个机构是否应该取消，没什么关系啊？运到G国来的cheese们，也可能因为这个机构的存在而不能入境啊。


请高手指教。

rucstarchan

刚看到A我觉得也对， 后来看到C就觉得C跟直白。我们要用白痴思维～

我觉得A可以算无关，虽然说如果这些cheese国内能生产，那么reject那些不合格的cheese没有必要了，但是这里重点在查处不合格产品的益处小于机构运作的支出。 这里我们不要想太多， 就想说那这个益处是否真那么小，是不是因为有这个机构的存在导致外国出口商不敢把次品运进来。。。所以导致只有1%的拒绝率。

不知道对不对。。。

tofreesky

我也选了A。。。。

sealg

是不是说  这个agent太负责任了 所以拒绝的cheese只有百分之一  所以它的cost就高了？