扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2008E2-RC-48
For over a decade the most common policy advice given to developing countries by international development institutions has been to copy the export-oriented path of the newly industrializing countries, the celebrated NICs. These economies-Brazil, Hong Kong, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan-burst into the world manufacturing market in the late 1960s and the 1970s; by 1978 these six economies, along with India, enjoyed unequaled growth rates for gross national product and for exports, with exports accounting for 70 percent of the developing world's manufactured exports. It was, therefore, not surprising that dozens of other countries attempted to follow their model, yet no countries-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-have even approached their success. In "No More NICs," Robin Broad and John Cavanagh search for the reasons behind these failures, identifying far-reaching changes in the global economy-from synthetic substitutes for commodity exports to unsustainable levels of foreign debt-as responsible for a glut economy offering little room for new entrants. Despite these changes, the authors maintain, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed. And yet the futility of this approach should, according to the authors, be all too apparent so many years into a period of reduced growth in world markets.
The author mentions Malaysia and Thailand in order to
acknowledge the appearance of implausibility in a broad claim
concede the possible existence of counterexamples to a generalization
offer additional evidence in support of a disputed conclusion
illustrate the broad applicability of a hypothesis
admit the limited scope of a standard analysis
此讲解的内容由AI生成，还未经人工审阅，仅供参考。
正确答案是 B。作者提及马来西亚和泰国是为了承认一般性的陈述可能存在反例。由文章中的内容可以知道，尽管有很多国家试图模仿 NICs 的出口导向模式，但除了马来西亚和泰国之外，没有其他国家能够达到他们的成功水平。因此，作者提及马来西亚和泰国是承认一般性的陈述可能存在反例。
文章的不是应该持负态度的吗，那为啥这里的目的会是去承认反例，如果说是为了进一步说明绝大部分都失败了不是更说的通吗？求解
定位句:yet no countries-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-have even approached their success.大部分国家都失败了(除了泰国和马来西亚).理解错了,以为泰国失败了.
A 承认一个广泛传播的说法的不真实性,没有说不真实,只是有例外
B对,说明有例外
concede the possible existence of counterexamples to a generalization承认一种概括可能存在反例
concede the possible existence of counterexamples to a generalization承认反例可能存在
没看到破折号
concede - to admit that something is true or correct, although you wish it were not true
（不得不）承认
A并不是说这个不真实，只是存在例外
implausibility 不可信
concede - to admit that something is true or correct, although you wish it were not true
（不得不）承认
It was, therefore, not surprising that dozens of other countries attempted to follow their model, yet no countries-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-have even approached their success.
本题的关键是这句话“It was, therefore, not surprising that dozens of other countries attempted to follow their model, yet no countries-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-have even approached their success. ” 这句话等于是提出了NICs是一个反例。 选项中有个关键词concede，它的意思是“承认（某事属实、合乎逻辑等）”to admit that sth is true, logical, etc. 。 另外，本文全文都没有提到disputed conclusion。 所以C答案是不对的。
指出一个no countries have even approached their success 论证中的例外：-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-
generalization----no countries have even approached their success.(through NICs)
counter example----Malaysia and Thailand (these two are successful using NICs)
concede vt. 承认；退让；给予，容许 counterexamples n. 反例 首先要清楚with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand是讲M和T是成功的===虽然大多数国家都没有成功，全文对NIC持的是否定态度，提到M和T是特例，1是可以体现文章的公正性，2是可以证明靠NIC这个方法成功并不是普遍的
concede （不情愿地）承认；让与
It was, therefore, not surprising that dozens of other countries attempted to follow their model, yet no countries-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-have even approached their success.
错选e, 虽然排除了马来西亚和泰国看上去是个范围，但是这是一个客观的事实，而不是分析。
A并不是说这个不真实，只是存在例外
C并没有为什么有争议的结论提出证据
D没有讲什么理论的应用
E没有承认一个标准分析的有限范围
错选a。文章里说没有developing country可以复制nic的成功。所以其实thailand和malaysia是说这个结论有反例，也就是thailand 和 malaysia其实是exception,成功了。正是b所说的。
而a是说承认这个broad claim有不可信的一面。显然没有b更准确，而原作者也没有要说broad claim implausible的意思。
为啥不是A，只有两个不是可以体现很少吗