[問題 GWD 一題

[evelyn_yeh]

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?

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.
Answer: (C)
我覺得答案怪怪的...我自己是選A...
請板上大大解惑之

[medi66]

有收入就會會被課稅 現在政府讓他們免稅
不管他們收入的來源是工作的薪水 或是 supplement
所以 對於結論 沒有weaken的效果

Open to discuss~

我在做這題的時候 一看到"稅" 直覺就是個無關選項 直接就刪掉了
也沒想這麼多

不過 我選的是D 還是錯!!!

想要了解一下 正確答案C的思路 是什麼
感謝~

[yayabobo]

題目的重點是說..
補助並不會提升工人的收入,使收入超過失業時的補助--->有工作或是沒工作,工人的totally revenue並沒有差別
因此,失業的人口沒有誘因去接受有補助的工作機會--->失業的人不想找工作,反正有工作沒工作還不都一樣

問weaken

答案C是說
people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
表示說job seekers who are unemployed 還是有找工作的念頭

這是我的看法~

[vantreal]

unemployed:
l---------------l 全部都是 gvmt assistance
employed:
l---------l---l 前面一段是income, 後面是supplement

問weaken:
employed 要higher pay, 那上面圖的前面一段(income)就會更長,
而否定了題目的argument.

[lucyyeh]

其實樓上兩位的解釋我都看不太懂，
我仔細想想應該是這樣的：
因為題目最後一句的結論，我們必須找出一個答案來否定結論，
Therefore（我覺的得這個字後面的才可以算結論）, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Keyword在incentive ，
題目說，既然政府有補助失業的人去做低工資工作的人，阿失業的人去做政府補助的低工資工作實質上拿的錢又沒比那些沒工作領失業救濟金的多（However後那句解釋了），那幹嘛要工作呢？

C選在此提供了那些失業人去工作另外一個incentive
people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

就是說，一般人工作了以後，再去找新工作，比較容易找到較高薪資的工作，
---->題目結論說no incentive，但這就是一個incentive，以後錢才會越來越多，所以weaken。

但是本來沒工作的job seeker可是沒這麼容易了

[dibert8]

對了! 這就是"先求有,再求好"的觀念.

[chencraig0227]

對了! 這就是"先求有,再求好"的觀念.

很不直接的答案!...
有工作的人會想要去找更高薪的工作...這樣可以當成那些失業人的誘因阿?
選項應該改寫成"根據研究 有工作的人有較高的機率找到更高薪的工作"
這樣我還比較信服...

tend to 感覺是主觀的傾向...我只能說失業的人真有"遠見"。