Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112
FormosaMBA 傷心咖啡店 • 檢視主題 - OG 104

OG 104

邏輯思維的訓練,考試戰場上的對決

版主: shpassion, Traver0818

OG 104

文章pcl12 » 2004-12-23 21:31

104.
Spending on research and development by United States businesses for 1984 showed an increase of about 8 percent over the 1983 level. This increase actually continued a downward trend evident since 1981 – when outlays for research and development increased 16.4 percent over 1980 spending. Clearly, the 25 percent tax credit enacted by Congress in 1981, which was intended to promote spending on research and development, did little or nothing to stimulate such spending.

The conclusion of the argument above cannot be true unless which of the following is true?

(A) Business spending on research and development is usually directly proportional to business profits.
(B) Business spending for research and development in 1985 could not increase by more than 8.3%.
(C) Had the 1981 tax credit been set higher than 25%, business spending for research and development after 1981 would have increased more than it did.
(D) In the absence of the 25% tax credit, business spending for research and development after 1981 would not have been substantially lower than it was.
(E) Tax credits market for specific investments are rarely effective in inducing businesses to make those investments.


答案是選出來了,不過關於og 對 B.C.E 的解釋不大明瞭。against choice B.C.E? :|||

If the tax credit was ineffective, some other factors must determine the level of spending, and could lead to much higher levels of spending in 1985 (against choice B), and could render a higher level of tax credit ineffective (against choice C), but it could be that credits are generally effective (against choice E).
頭像
pcl12
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 103
註冊時間: 2004-12-03 19:26

文章davidlee0222 » 2004-12-23 21:46

題目問除非下列哪個對,文章結論(81年25%tax credit沒用)才會對
答案就是若沒有25%tax credit這種東西,81年研發費用不會比較低

解答的意思是說
若tax credit無效
必有其他因素決定花費程度
而可能導致85年更高的花費
也可能使更高程度的tax credit無效
但有可能其他的credits多半有效

解答的主要意思是BCE的狀況無法定論
davidlee0222
白金會員
白金會員
 
文章: 3017
註冊時間: 2004-12-14 19:54

文章bakekab » 2005-02-17 20:07

題目說 研發支出在1884年比1883 多了百分8 但是研發支出的增加率有下降的趨勢 因為1881年的研發支出比1880年多出百分之16.4
題目結論 一個國會在1881年實行的百分之25的抵扣稅額 只產生了一點或幾乎沒有的作用

選項要選 支持 抵扣稅額是沒用的選項
a) Business spending on research and development is usually directly proportional to business profits.從題目中看不出有相關
b) Business spending for research and development in 1985 could not increase by more than 8.3%. 題目只說有下降的趨勢 並沒有說1885年會怎麼樣 也沒有提到 抵扣稅額 所以 不選
c) Had the 1981 tax credit been set higher than 25%, business spending for research and development after 1981 would have increased more than it did.
說假若1881的 抵扣稅額 高于百分之25 在1881年之後的研發支出成長率會比原先的多 此選項支持 抵扣稅額 是有用的
d) In the absence of the 25% tax credit, business spending for research and development after 1981 would not have been substantially lower than it was.
假若沒有了百分之25的抵扣稅額 1981年之後企業花在研發的支出增加率不會比原來少 意思就是說 抵扣稅額 是沒什麼用的 支持題目的論述
e) Tax credits market for specific investments are rarely effective in inducing businesses to make those investments.
說 對於特定的投資 的抵扣稅額 對於吸引企業進行該項投資鮮少有效 意思就是說 對於一般來說是有效的 (but it could be that credits are generally effective (against choice E).) 支持了 抵扣稅額 有效的論調

所以選D 可以繼續討論
奮鬥的動力來自於心中的不服氣
頭像
bakekab
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 48
註冊時間: 2004-12-03 11:17

文章rhea » 2005-07-23 23:38

真是詳盡的解說, 幫了我很大的忙....
真是太感謝您的解答了~~~
rhea
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 28
註冊時間: 2004-11-15 01:11

文章amber1114 » 2005-12-12 10:43

謝謝bakekab!! 你的解說真的很詳盡!!
解答了我好多疑問啊~~~
amber1114
新手會員
新手會員
 
文章: 10
註冊時間: 2005-10-03 13:13
來自: 高雄

文章scujean » 2006-02-28 11:28

解釋的真的很詳細ㄝ。謝謝
頭像
scujean
高級會員
高級會員
 
文章: 317
註冊時間: 2005-11-10 16:44
來自: blue planet

文章dibert8 » 2007-04-11 05:25

(D) 跟題中的結論,其實是講同一件事.發現美國人寫文章非常強調一致性,結論不過就是rephrase.雖說是因果,不如說是一體兩面.
dibert8
白金會員
白金會員
 
文章: 2202
註冊時間: 2007-01-08 01:17


回到 GMAT Critical Reasoning 考區

誰在線上

正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者:沒有註冊會員 和 6 位訪客