[問題]OG(11th) Q1

[minimumi]

1. Some economists view the Kennedy- Johnson tax out of 1964, which radically reduced corporate and individual taxes, as the impetus for the substantial prosperity enjoyed by the United States in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the clainthat the tax cut of 1964 was the impetus for economic prosperity?

(B) Improved economic conditions in Western Europe and Japan resulted in substantially increased demand for United States manufactured goods in the late 1960's.

(C) The tax cut of 1964 contained regulations concerning tax shelters that prompted investors to transfer their savings to more economically productive incestments.

Answer:(B)

不知道為甚麼答案是(B),我選(C)
希望有人能幫忙解答,謝謝！

[jim0203]

1. Some economists view the Kennedy- Johnson tax out of 1964, which radically reduced corporate and individual taxes, as the impetus for the substantial prosperity enjoyed by the United States in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the clainthat the tax cut of 1964 was the impetus for economic prosperity?

(B) Improved economic conditions in Western Europe and Japan resulted in substantially increased demand for United States manufactured goods in the late 1960's.

(C) The tax cut of 1964 contained regulations concerning tax shelters that prompted investors to transfer their savings to more economically productive investments.

Answer:(B)

不知道為甚麼答案是(B),我選(C)
希望有人能幫忙解答,謝謝！

由原題可以結論出
1964 tax cut ---> improved economic conditions
題目是要weaken的答案

(B) 答案是說美國的1960年代後期經濟情況改善"並不是"由"1964 taxe cut"
所造成的，而是由於西歐國家和日本對美國製的貨品的大量需求而造成的。

這個答案是用"它因"造成improved economic conditions，來否
定原題的因果關係，進而達成weaken的效果。所以是正確的答案



(C) 答案是說1964年的tax cut政策也包含著如果人民將他們的儲蓄拿去投資
有經濟生產的投資標的是可以減稅的。

這個答案沒有達到weakn的效果，反而還support原題的因果關係。所以不
選。

這是小弟的個人觀點，如果有問題請多指教...

[minimumi]

解釋得很清楚耶～
我了解了～謝謝囉！