老師 想請你用這兩題比較一下 到底什麼算是發散 什麼是不算發散 相关考题（ID 230）： Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska's government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government's plan is obviously working. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts. Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. Many of the economists who now claim that the government's plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced. 上面這題我直接去BCE 比較AD A 說一群人把錢從那裏取了出來 那裏的錢就少了 駁斥 D 又有錢存到那個帳戶裡了 是支持 刪 我選了A 後來經高人指點 已經明白為何D是駁斥 (高人對D的解釋是 政府的目的是要大家存錢 而大家只是把存的錢轉去特別帳戶 總的存款量並無增加 所以政府目的並未達到 駁斥 順便請問這個思路對否) 但是我想知道的是如何去A 老管錄音說因為原文討論的是存不存錢 收不收利息 和原文無關 我留了A 就是主觀推測了 好 我接受這個解釋 那下面這題 我馬上就去掉BCDE 原因如下 A:說所有人 原文所討論的範圍也包括 暫時先留 B:說在哪裡喝酒 跟原文無關 直接去 CDE太土鱉 直接去 所以只剩一選項 那就是A 後又經高人指點(不同高人) 因為在遠離家的地方喝 就需要交通 就有車禍 我完全可以理解為什麼 但這就沒有發散 主觀了嗎? 因為選了B的話 表示得主觀認為不在家喝就得開車 或者說在外面喝就得開車回家 所以才有車禍 所以到底什麼才是發散不發散? 可以用老管的"已知信息的定義"來解決這個問題嗎? 請老師告訴我 我的問題是什麼?

这题我觉得问题想问的是，为啥低于21岁的人喝酒没少，但是酒驾死亡率减少，所以我觉得至少和酒驾沾点边，b选项我没看出来支持，按我的理解，我选了一个和车子有关的，c，请老师指出我的思路，同时我觉得b有点扯太远了

选了A，觉得A更沾原文比B

老師 想請你用這兩題比較一下 到底什麼算是發散 什麼是不算發散 相关考题（ID 230）： Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska's government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government's plan is obviously working. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts. Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. Many of the economists who now claim that the government's plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced. 上面這題我直接去BCE 比較AD A 說一群人把錢從那裏取了出來 那裏的錢就少了 駁斥 D 又有錢存到那個帳戶裡了 是支持 刪 我選了A 後來經高人指點 已經明白為何D是駁斥 (高人對D的解釋是 政府的目的是要大家存錢 而大家只是把存的錢轉去特別帳戶 總的存款量並無增加 所以政府目的並未達到 駁斥 順便請問這個思路對否) 但是我想知道的是如何去A 老管錄音說因為原文討論的是存不存錢 收不收利息 和原文無關 我留了A 就是主觀推測了 好 我接受這個解釋 那下面這題 我馬上就去掉BCDE 原因如下 A:說所有人 原文所討論的範圍也包括 暫時先留 B:說在哪裡喝酒 跟原文無關 直接去 CDE太土鱉 直接去 所以只剩一選項 那就是A 後又經高人指點(不同高人) 因為在遠離家的地方喝 就需要交通 就有車禍 我完全可以理解為什麼 但這就沒有發散 主觀了嗎? 因為選了B的話 表示得主觀認為不在家喝就得開車 或者說在外面喝就得開車回家 所以才有車禍 所以到底什麼才是發散不發散? 可以用老管的"已知信息的定義"來解決這個問題嗎? 請老師告訴我 我的問題是什麼?