Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to the job. The legislature's move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.
Pat's response to Mel is inadequate in that it
attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change.
attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects.
simply denies Mel's claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial .
assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
错选了C:
M的意思是,最优秀的法官不来做这个工作,是因为讲座和授课都不能收钱,而P是说很少有法官会上课or讲座,但是P基于的是现在的法官,而不是the best candidates
这就好像说:M认为中国国足吸引不了优秀人才,涨工资解决不了问题因为不让拍广告。P说了:咱们的球员根本没人拍广告。P的问题就在于:目前的球员本来就能力差没人找他们拍广告,可牛逼的球员广告费代言费是很多的,不让拍广告人家就不来踢足球了->from KMF
我觉得C错的原因是只说了ban没有负面影响,而他说的是涨工资有正面影响,涨工资和ban是两个东西
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论