The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from $1.00 to $1.25, proposed that 18 fare tokens be sold for $20.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city’s poor people.Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00, because a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders.
The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?
Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase.
Riders who are poor would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would riders who are not poor.
The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor.
The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city’s bus system.
Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once.
情景:Workney公交费用涨价了,从1涨到1.25,所以政府提议那打个九折吧,20刀可以买个18次卡,减轻一下穷人的负担。反对者就认为,20刀起卖的话穷人可能根本付不起20刀,不如10刀起卖。
推理:
目标:减轻穷人负担。
方案:20刀起卖减成10刀起卖
方案推理。问假设,选项取非后要达到削弱效果。
选项分析:
A选项:尽管费用涨了,但是穷人将继续保持乘车的次数:如果不保持,或者说乘车次数减少,也并不影响“20刀减成10刀”这个方案能不能达到目标。
B选项:穷人比非穷人更愿意接受10刀起卖的offer:穷人和非穷人的无关对比。
C选项:正确。穷人不会付不起10刀:取非后,10刀起卖穷人也付不起,那就达到了削弱目的,属于方案可行性问题。
D选项:提议的涨价是为了城市公交系统购买新公车:这个选项在讨论涨价的目的,无关。
E选项:比起9次卡,更少的人会一次性买18次卡:即使买两种卡的人一样多,也无法得出9次卡能不能达到“减轻穷人负担”这个目标。
注意alternative proposal问的是critics的建议。
A. 涨价后穷人会继续乘公交(所以才有必要讨论token的问题),不直接,且不只是critics的前提,也是第一种方案的前提。
B. 18张20元=9张10元,并不是saving
C. Critics认为穷人无法一次性付20元,所以要推出新选项。那他们一定是确定新选项穷人是可以接受的。
注意not和否定形容词 没有读出来
注意:穷人
方案题——问方案有效的前提是什么?
做题要点:
1. 正确选项需要提到完整的方案(9 tokens for $10.00) ;
2. 正确选项取非后会削弱方案
我们是在讨论对于穷人来说为什么9个token比18个更有吸引力