扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2018V-CR-162
Economist: Paying extra for fair-trade coffee——coffee labeled with the Fairtrade logo——is intended to help poor farmers, because they receive a higher price for the fair-trade coffee they grow. But this practice may hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps. By raiding average prices for coffee, it encourages more coffee to be produced than consumers want to buy. This lower prices for no-fair-trade coffee and thus lowers profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers.
To evaluate the strength of the economist’s argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
Whether there is a way of alleviating the impact of the increased average prices for coffee on non-fair-trade coffee farmer’s profits
What proportion of coffee farmers in developing nations produce fair-trade coffee
Whether many coffee farmers in developing nations also derive income from other kinds of farming
Whether consumers should pay extra for fair-trade coffee if doing so lowers profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers
How fair-trade coffee farmers in developing nations could be helped without lowering profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers
要评估这个推理是否够强，需要考虑1 是否NFT的咖啡农会多种植咖啡，2 咖啡的价格是否会大波动 3 是否有可能会滞销 4均价相关的因素
B选项关注的就是FT咖啡农的比例，如果FT咖啡农占比很低的话，他们对均价的影响就不会很大，从而也就不会对市场有很大的影响，后边的推理也就无从说起
做这种题最需要的就是理清逻辑链条，对逻辑链条任一环进行削弱或者加强都对最后的结果有影响。
因为fair trade的农民会疯狂产咖啡，导致咖啡价格下跌
所以non fair trade农民遭殃 评价是否真的会影响non农民利润
B Fair trade农民比例是。。取极端，99%是fair trade 那么non trade根本没影响，99% non 那影响太大了
结论：伤害发展中国家农民的利益
B：如果咖农种的F-T比N-F-T多很多，肯定不会影响。
B选项直接考虑了Paying extra for fair-trade coffee是否会raiding平均价格，A选项和推理链条无关。
逻辑：生产总量增加，价格降低，利润降低
题目的conclusion是 hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helpsB是直接在论证是否是more farmers 利益受损 而A却没有
这个解释不太合理，这里的比较对象是this practice hurt more than it helps,是伤害性比帮助大，不是伤害农民的数量的比较
a不管有没有方法减轻生产non-fair-coffee的农民的伤害，伤害就是伤害，不会因为减轻而不存在。登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
argument反对的是这样做会损害发展中国家农民的利益，但发展中国家的农民比例是不是占大多数呢？多少会影响到总量？
啥意思?评价题也能加强或者减弱？评价题 正确答案相关，其他四个答案不相关
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论