Critical Reasoning
试题详情
题目：
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
选项:
A、Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.
B、The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
C、For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
D、People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
E、Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
答案:
A
提问：
请转唐瑭老师。
老师，请您看下图片中，我抓出的重心对不对。这道题，我能很快排掉的是D和E。然后在第一遍做题时抓不到ABC的重点，但是B能感觉不对。A根本没读懂。[img=/resource/2020-07/14678-1594225662.jpg]
评分:
1
浏览:
6868
提问：
请教英吉老师，我有点分不清楚：角度不一样和他因驳斥的区别。这道题我选B，当时觉得是他因驳斥，生产商生产更持久的商品，也能够导致waste减少，请问您是怎么看的？如何分清这两者的区别？
评分:
1
浏览:
6994
提问：
A：提升处理成本，会可能提高动机去不正当的抛弃他们。（认为无关）
B：这个额外的花费，不能使得生产商被激励着生产更持有耐用的产品。（不能更持有耐用，所以这个东西该扔还得扔）
评分:
1
浏览:
6848
