[問題]GWD 29-Q16

[bonus]

Q16:
Political Advertisement:

Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the new jobs created has been higher than that year’s average pay for jobs citywide. So it stands to reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?

A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.
B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
C. Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.
D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

Answer: C

[bonus]

題目:
在D市長領導下
每年新增的工作數量大於消失數量
每年新增工作薪水大於消失工作薪水
問Weken

照題目所說薪水趨勢是往上的
若要Weaken
那就否定此一趨勢走向
因此C選項符合
因為消失的工作薪水平均高於新增工作薪水平均
會導致全市整體薪水平均是往下的
所以可Weaken

[bonus]

相同題目改成Support/Strengthen問法
GWD 6-14
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=873

[dianechiu]

不好意思我拿到的版本答案是C或D

我是選C,思路如下:
本題是要反駁在D市長任期中,平均薪水越來越高
題目:
1.在D市長任期中,新創造的工作數量>消失的工作數量
2.新創造的工作平均薪資>全市的平均薪資
題目推論:所以D市長任期中,平均薪水越來越高
(C)每年消失的工作平均薪資>全市的平均薪資
所以有可能:消失工作的平均薪資*消失的工作數量>新創造工作的平均薪資*新創造的工作數量=>減少大於增加=>平均薪水不升反降

比較好奇的是為何答案也出現(D)的可能?覺得是無關的選項...
請教一下謝謝

[dibert8]

(D) 是另外一題 (GWD6-Q14) 的答案,可能是弄混了.

[chris8888]

我認為A也不能排除, 因為儘管新的工作薪資較高, 但是當這個市長接任後, 經營不好, 失業率節高升, 導致即使很多人得到薪資較高的新工作, 至於有多少人得到薪資較高的新工作則不得而知, 但卻失業率更高了, 失業率造成的薪資是一個月收入0元, 平均下來根本是更糟.
這句話 => the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger <== 根本就可以充分推翻.

[阿琪]

本邏輯思路為：throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger
==>the average paycheck真的有 steadily bigger嗎？

(a)有幾個思路點要瞭解一下…
1、average paycheck ：是否在計算上要考慮到unemployment的人，還是僅針對在職的人 ？
把所有失業的人都一起算average paycheck，在應實際應用上似乎有點問題！(因為他們根本就沒工作，哪能算在分母裡呢？), 若是如此，則unemployment rate的多寡並非思路重點！！！

2、若不認同第1點…可以再想想，即使考慮了 unemployment rate is higher ，那麼higher是higher 多少呢？
如果只higher 一點點 (也可以稱higher) 而more jobs created 遠超過 unemployment 所降低的(unemployment的pay原本就很那些很低的人)，那麼達不到效果。
但也有可能是另一種情況…所以…很明顯的…無法用unemployment來weaken ：the average paycheck真的有 steadily bigger嗎?

(c)就直接鎖定average pay高的那群人是被eliminated的…相當明確

以上參考嚕！

[pimi]

請問B要如何排除??

[阿琪]

(B)average pay 是 ten-year low ~跟本題結論"tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger"
有什麼關聯… 感覺不出什麼交集！！

如果P大有什麼看法，可以提出來分享討論嚕~

[pimi]

真慘～選到一個大家都不選的選項 :~~~~~~~~~`

因為題目是問說tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger,　B就說根本在任期內的平均薪水是十年來最低, 這樣不是也可以說明在市長任期的全市平均薪水沒有增加嗎？？

[阿琪]

喔！因為(b)的主要意思應該是~

Delmont 當市長的時候，那時候The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low ~~
這只說了他任命為市長的那個時間點的情形，並沒有說當市長的"那段時間"情形，所以只是介紹了特定時間點！
不過他當市長後的"其它時間點"的就業變化情形…可就沒說了(這才是重點)~所以囉！

以上參考○才立！

[pimi]

阿阿
所以when Mayor Delmont took office是指他任命市長的那一刻阿
不是指Delmont任期的那段時間阿

哀哀～～

解讀錯誤:~~~~~~~~~

[aqboy[origen]]

感覺C不是很好的答案

消失工作的薪水>全市平均薪水 有兩種情況

1)消失工作>新增工作>平均 ---->則weaken結論 平均薪水不會穩定上升

2)新增工作>消失工作>平均----->因為提幹已經說明新增工作的數量>消失工作的數量, --->故平均薪水穩定上升

我當初是這樣想的 覺得不夠嚴謹 所以刪掉C, 不知道思路有沒有錯誤@@

但後來看了其他選項也沒有更好的