Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?
Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.
Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.
In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
太难了,取非后更看不懂B
全部可以分三批人,一批有H学位,一批有非H学位(有学位但不是H学位),一批没有学位,全国范围内收入是:非H学位 > H学位 > 没有学位,结论可以理解为:H学位的比例对人均收入是负相关关系,要加强结论就要排除其他干扰因对其相关关系的影响,这里其他干扰因就是 1、M市的非H学位 和 其他市的非H学位 2、M市H学位和其他市H学位 3、M市没有学位和其他市没有学位 两两之间收入是否有差异, B项就是由于干扰因的存在反而可能削弱结论(如:M市没有学位的人收入都比其他市没有学位的人高,然后M市这种人的比例也高,这才是M市人均收入高的原因)。大概,再来个选项说:M市没有学位的人人均收入no higher than 其他市没有学位的人均收入,也是可以加强的。
我也不知道上面说了啥,魔怔了……
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论