Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.
Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?
Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.
After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.
The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.
- (e) irrelevant: the question asks us to undermine the politician's suggestion, not to suggest an alternative. (analogy: if you think that eating only big macs will help you lose weight, i can't convince you otherwise by suggesting alternate diets)
E提出了另外一个可行方案,但是本题需要讨论这个方案,其他方案是无关选项
思路是就算再次贬值也不能刺激经济了(肯定有其他条件限制)
A:之前两次贬值政治家也说了同样的话(跟不能刺激经济没关系)
B:现在工厂已经接近最大产能(就算贬值刺激出口也不能生产出更多产品了)
C:只有出口多才是健康经济(那不就支持结论了吗)
D:世界其他厂家的货币都很稳定
E:增加工厂的生产效率可以在不贬值的情况下增加竞争力(错误选项,跟贬值不能刺激经济无关,题目前提是要贬值,这里说的是不贬值)
Politician 根据一个background做了一个提议:政府应该怎么做(keep weak currency)为了再一次刺激出口。作为政府看到这个提议,如果政府第一时间想质疑/反驳这个提议,以下哪个理由最充分?
如果去反驳,首先要反驳这个提议的存在,即:我们为什么要增加出口?有这个必要吗?(暗指不需要出口)
所以答案只有B
P:因为历史上的数次货币贬值都能促进出口
C:现在想增加出口,可以同样采用时货币贬值的方法
b,生产力达到顶峰 无法生产更多的产品以供出口——类比推理找过去和现在的不同条件
c,讲经济如何才能健康——与C的目的不符
Takeawy:CR题一定要紧扣原PC
不要质疑前提(by提出一个alternative)
b,生产力达到顶峰 无法生产更多的产品以供出口
c,讲经济如何才能健康
生产力已达峰值,没有什么可出口的啦
the phrase near-peak.
this means that the manufacturing sector can't increase output by very much at all (this is what 'peak output' means).
if the manufacturing sector can't meaningfully increase output, then it won't be able to produce a big increase in exports, because there won't be any extra stuff to export.
生产力已经在峰值了,不可能生产出更多产品用于出口,没得东西卖还谈什么增长
1、理解题意 2、紧扣arguements,说的是sized increase,而e讲的是price,明显是不对的
B,制造业已经接近顶峰。
货币再怎么贬值,生成不了更多就出口不了更多。
题目的目的是 cause another similarly sized increase in exports
错选c,条件在讲国家经济的发展,与目的增加出口量无关
b选项:目前产量已经达到最高值,无法增加出口了,削弱
Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.生产能力已经达到极限,再刺激也没用了。
把几年前的情景和现在的情景dui比,B提出了不同之处,weaken
方案的目标是cause another similarly sized increase in exports,不是经济增长,所以C错
B.因为原来完全在最大生产力之下,刺激有效,增长出口,但是现在生产力已趋近顶点,刺激无用。削弱
E.生产力的巨大改变可以使得产品在国际市场上成为便宜货从而不需要降低。错误,自己最常出的错误,此题前提之前的降低带来出口的增加,现在因需要出口增加提议需要再来一次减少。问题是这个提案是否可行。另一个可选方案并无法判断此方法是否可行。即使另一个方案更好,也无法排除问题中方法很好的可能。
Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.生产能力已经达到极限,再刺激也没用了。
把几年前的情景和现在的情景类比,B提出了不同之处,weaken
相似推导相似,答案为两个类比对象的区别。
目的|to cause 〖a similarly sized increase 〗in exports(和过去12年或者过去5年商品由于货币贬值导致的出口增加)
方案|和12年前以及5年前一样让货币贬值
B说过去几十年产能都是低迷的,现在产能近乎最大值,这意味着,过去那两次的increase在其他变量和现在保持不变的情况下,是一定没有现在的increase大的(因为现在产能更大了!!所以刺激后,出口应该更有货源),故无法实现a similarly sized increase。
套路,过去不代表现在和未来,那么指出过去和现在以及未来的不同,就是削弱了
这题可以理解为类比推理,一个是第一次weak pundra,一个是第二次weak pundra,找两次weak的区别,那就只有B
B的生产跟出口有什么关系?不可以之前生产的全部东西都在国内用掉了,0出口,然后货币贬值之后生产的东西开始出口了吗?
我承认E也不对,所以这道题我觉得没正确选项。
Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially. 看这儿
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
错选C,看反了题目。
方案。
B:现在工厂已经接近最大产能(就算贬值刺激出口也不能生产出更多产品了)