Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?


Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.

Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.

Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.

Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.

Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

加入错题本 分享
纠错
考题讲解

情景：如果想减少空气污染物的排放，就应该让企业上税。但是，在Y国，很多严重的污染物是无税的并且没有被限制的，并且政策的制定者非常反对新的税。因此，最好的减排方案就是让Y国引入一个固定的排放上限。

推理：本题的整个结论是方案，所以是方案推理。
推理结构为： 
目标：减少空气污染物的排放 
方案：让Y国引入一个固定的排放上限

选题方式：方案推理有三个评估方向，简而言之，即，答案选项一定和方案的内容相关。

选项分析：

A选项：Y国的政策制定者同等的反对一切加税政策，无论这个政策能提供什么样的收益。本选项和方案无关。

B选项：如果按照给排放收税，那么Y国的空气污染也不会显著下降。本选项和方案无关。

C选项：Y国的政策制定者强力地赞成下降空气污染物的排放。本选项讨论的是政策制定者的特性，和方案无关。

D选项：Y国的政策制定者认为空气污染物的排放应该以经济效率最大化的方式来减少。本选项和方案无关。

E选项： Correct. Y国的政策制定者不会和反对收税政策一样强力地反对设定排放上限。如果是这样，那么引入一个固定的排放上限就会和收税一样完全无法操作。属于CQ2：方案的可操作性问题。

展开显示

登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2019-CR