july_0112

75．The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a popular science and technology magazine.
“It is a popular myth that consumers are really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. Granted-consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with their real income. As real income rises, therefore, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food. Yet agricultural technology is credited with having made our lives better.”
论据一：Granted-consumers are, on the average, spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food.
反驳：首先，作者的假定存在问题，作者假定消费者福利的提高表现在他们在食物上花费的钱占收入的比例在减少。然而在讨论advances in agriculture technology时，关于benefits（welfare）的定义却不应当仅局限于此。比如，技术的进步使得custom能够吃到更加营养的食物，有更多的食物种类的选择并且能够享受到许多的农业副产品，这都能够反映其福利的提高。
论据二：But consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion with their real income. As real income rises, therefore, consumers can be expected to spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food.
反驳：作者使用的支持“consider that the demand for food does not rise in proportion of their income on food.”存在问题，人们用于食物的开销占总收入的比例究竟会不会随着收入的增长而变化取决于人们的收入状况（income condition）。比如，一户收入不能保证家庭成员最基本food demand的家庭，当real income增加时，其对与食物的需求有极大的可能性随之而增加。
此外，假设整个国家的real income增加了，整体的物价水平很可能会上升，即使customs的food demand维持在一个不变的水平之上，其用于食物的整体支出有可能增加，并且增加的幅度有可能超过收入增加的幅度，那么对于食物的支出所占收入的比例应该是上升的。
第三，随着real income的增加，customs很可能转向更高质量并且价格更贵的食物，即使对于食物总量的需求没有增加，对于食物质量的需求却发生了变化，其用于食物的支出也可能随之增加并且使得这份支出占收入的比例增加。
总而言之，在考虑agriculture technology对于customs福利的影响时，作者选择的对于福利的评估指标，即基本假定存在问题，分析中考虑问题也不够全面，故作者无法反驳农业技术进步对于人们福利提高有影响这样一个结论。

july_0112

76．The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
“This city should be able to improve existing services and provide new ones without periodically raising the taxes of the residents. Instead, the city should require that the costs of services be paid for by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. After all, these projects can be highly profitable to the developers, but they can also raise a city’s expenses and increase the demand for its services.”
首先，作者针对的最终目的是improve existing services and provide new services，作者认为这笔钱的来源不应该是提高居民税收而增加的收入，而应该由developers who seek approval for their large new building projects来承担，并且给出了两条理由。
理由一：these projects can be highly profitable to the developers
反驳：假使这些projects的确具有很高的盈利，然而developers who seek approval for their large new building projects不一定能够最终得到项目，因此不一定能够从中获得盈利，那么the costs of the services不应当由他们承担。
此外，哪怕针对的的确是申请到项目的developers，然而无论是existing service还是new ones，都不会仅仅局限于large new building中，仅让这个群体来承担成本是不合理的。
另外，再高的盈利很可能也只是一种相对的说法，相对于其他项目盈利高并不能说明其本身盈利真的非常可观。再者，这些盈利的绝大部分很可能要用于下一轮的投资，投资的成本很高，如果require them to cover some or even all costs of services，很可能给其造成很大的负担，影响其持续的发展。
理由二：They can also raise a city’s expenses and increase the demand for its services
反驳：作者认为这些new projects会提高城市的消费并且更多地增加需求，这对于residents和城市更快发展都有比较大的压力，而作者认为developers who seek approval for their large new building projects应该承担这个成本。显然这是不对的，由上面的分析便可以知道不合理性。
此外，raise a city’s expenses和increase the demand for a city’s services对于城市的发展来说并不是坏事，有效地需求和消费能够保证长期的经济增长，并且这可以为政府带来更多的税收，对于政府来说也是有利的。

july_0112

77．The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
“In order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills, our municipality should build a plant for burning trash. An incinerator could offer economic as well as ecological advantages over the typical old-fashioned type of landfill: incinerators can be adapted to generate moderate amounts of electricity, and ash residue for some types of trash can be used to condition garden soil.”
论点一：In order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills, our municipality should build a plant for burning trash.
反驳：作者在这里提出，避免垃圾填埋带来的health treats的方式是建造垃圾焚烧场地，然而这绝对不是解决问题的唯一出路，比如完全可以改造landfills的技术来降低其对health的危害。
理由一：An incinerator could offer economic as well as ecological advantages over the typical old-fashioned type of landfill: incinerators can be adapted to generate moderate amounts of electricity, and ash residue for some types of trash can be used to condition garden soil.”
反驳：作者认为用燃烧炉燃烧垃圾的方式优越于typical old-fashioned type of landfill的原因incinerator有经济和环境上的优势，即改造的燃烧炉能够用于少量地发电，某些类型的灰烬还能够用来做花园土。
然而，非常明显的是作者对于incinerator的评价是不全面的，他有意避开了incinerator的缺点，诸如很重要的一点是，焚烧过程中产生的尾气如果处理不当的话，对于大气的污染将是很严重的，这也必然会危害到人类的健康，而这种危害可能比现有技术水平下的landfill更加糟糕。此外，垃圾焚烧必然要消耗能源，而且这笔消耗将会很大，事实上这对于环境和经济的发展也是很不利的。
此外作者也避免提及了landfill相对于incinerator的优点，比如landfill处理垃圾的单位成本会比incinerator低。这样的比较是不公平的，因此作者得出的结论是不足以具有很强说服力的。

july_0112

78．The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.
“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”
观点一：Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase.
首先，我们承认这个假设是正确的。
观点二：Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.
反驳：遵循假设，作者提出这样的观点，让工作场所更加的安全，则可以decrease the risk of physical injury，那么就可以reduce the payroll expenses从而save money。然而要知道让工作场所更加安全不一定能够save money，因为建立一个更加安全的工作场所、改善工作场所的环境、维护一个安全的工作场所，有可能要花费更大一笔支出。另外，有一些工作场所是不可能变得更加地安全的，比如说police，他们面对的工作环境往往不是认为可以改变的。
此外，当工资达到一定的水平，哪怕the risk of physical injury降低了，也不可能因此而降低现有的工资水平，因为工人以及工会更愿意升工资而不是降工资，他们会努力维护他们的权益。因为workplace condition的改善而降低工资肯定会遭到反对，在冲突的过程中可能会带来更多的成本增加。
在承认假设的前提下，降低risk of physical injury的方式也不仅只有make workplace safe这么一种选择，比如可以通过给employees进行更多的安全技能培训、安全宣传，增强他们的自我保护能力和安全意识，这个成本或许会更低而且更加有效。
反驳假设：事实上，作者的假设本身也存在着问题。面对增加的risk of physical injury，companies也可以选择保持工资水平不变，然而给employees更新保险计划，提供更为合理的保险，以应对风险和损失。

july_0112

79．The following appeared as part of a company memorandum.
“Adopting an official code of ethics regarding business practices may in the long run do our company more harm than good in the public eye. When one of our competitors received unfavorable publicity for violating its own code of ethics, it got more attention from the media than it would have if it had no such code. Rather than adopt an official code of ethics, therefore, we should instead conduct a publicity campaign that stresses the importance of protecting the environment and assisting charitable organizations.”
首先，为了支持“Adopting an official code of ethics regarding business practices may in the long run do our company more harm than good in the public eye.”这个观点，作者给出了以下的论据作为支持：
论据一：When one of our competitors received unfavorable publicity for violating its own code of ethics, it got more attention from the media than it would have if it had no such code.
反驳：我们假设作者给出的论据是一个事实，然而要知道this competitor的遭遇毕竟只是一个个案，不能够支持拥有official code of ethics regarding

vansonkated

many  thanks @@@

pangpangshin

many  thanks @@@@@@@@@

cckjenius

many  thanks  _)__

alicejingli

感谢了&&**

yidiyuehans

many  thanks @@@