还没有登录哦!

[Critical Reasoning]

试题详情

题目:

Editorial:
 
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance.  To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply.  However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.  Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.
 
Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

选项:

A、The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
B、Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C、People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
D、The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E、People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

答案:

C

提问:

原文看得不是很明白,所以选的时候比较迷糊。

解答:

点赞0
阅读12672
解答: sysadmin

提问:

这道题,我读完就排除了A,B,C,D,剩下E C说了工作了人找工作会比失业的人找工作工资更高 E说了人们有时接受抵工资的工作是因为他们喜欢这份工作 那时觉得C说的是工作了的和失业的人找工作的比较,觉得他们不和题目相关 而E的喜欢工作则能驳斥原文的have no financial incentive 所以我就选了E,而且还觉得它挺对的 麻烦老师指出我错在哪里了,谢谢。

解答:

点赞0
阅读8075
解答: sysadmin老师

问个问题

点我领取
免费专项课程
在线咨询