Conventional wisdom has it that large deficits in the United States budget cause interest rates to rise. Two main arguments are given for this claim. According to the first, as the deficit increases, the government will borrow more to make up for the ensuing shortage of funds. Consequently, it is argued, if both the total supply of credit (money available for borrowing) and the amount of credit sought by nongovernment borrowers remain relatively stable, as is often supposed, then the price of credit (the interest rate) will increase. That this is so is suggested by the basic economic principle that if supplies of a commodity (here, credit) remain fixed and demand for that commodity increases, its price will also increase. The second argument supposes that the government will tend to finance its deficits by increasing the money supply with insufficient regard for whether there is enough room for economic growth to enable such an increase to occur without causing inflation. It is then argued that financiers will expect the deficit to cause inflation and will raise interest rates, anticipating that because of inflation the money they lend will be worth less when paid back.
Unfortunately for the first argument, it is unreasonable to assume that nongovernment borrowing and the supply of credit will remain relatively stable. Nongovernment borrowing sometimes decreases. When it does, increased government borrowing will not necessarily push up the total demand for credit. Alternatively, when credit availability increases, for example through greater foreign lending to the United States, then interest rates need not rise, even if both private and government borrowing increase.
The second argument is also problematic. Financing the deficit by increasing the money supply should cause inflation only when there is not enough room for economic growth. Currently, there is no reason to expect deficits to cause inflation. However, since many financiers believe that deficits ordinarily create inflation, then admittedly they will be inclined to raise interest rates to offset mistakenly anticipated inflation. This effect, however, is due to ignorance, not to the deficit itself, and could be lessened by educating financiers on this issue.
The author uses the term "admittedly" (see highlighted text) in order to indicate that
the second argument has some truth to it, though not for the reasons usually supposed
the author has not been successful in attempting to point out inadequacies in the two arguments
the thesis that large deficits directly cause interest rates to rise has strong support after all
financiers should admit that they were wrong in thinking that large deficits will cause higher inflation rates
financiers generally do not think that the author's criticisms of the second argument are worthy of consideration
题目分析:
题目释义:
细节题目
考点:
逻辑结构(Logical structure)
旨在考察我们对文章结构的认知,以及对作者行文目的的判断。
这道题目定位在出现高亮词的那句话中。“admittedly”本身的意思是固然的意思。相信大家在作文中时常把它用作“让步段”首句。这里先来给大家翻译高亮词所在的句子。
意思是“但是,因为金融学家认为赤字按道理说会引起通货膨胀,故他们固然会倾向于增长利率来期望补偿他们所错误认为的会增长的通货膨胀。”
选项分析:
A选项:Correct。第二个论点有他真实的地方,虽然不是它假定的原因。(意思是第二个论点有对的地方,虽然引发利率上涨的原因是不正确的),没错,利率确实是会上涨的,但是不是因为赤字真的会引发通货膨胀,而是金融学家们认为会引发通货膨胀而“擅自”上调利率。
B选项:作者没有成功的指出两个观点的不足之处。这个选项属于无中生有。
C选项:赤字会直接引起利率的上升这个理论毕竟还是有强烈的支持的。这个选项较易误选。其说出了让步这一点,但是没有理由认为第二论点有强大的支持,文中也提到了这句话来否认这一观点“Currently, there is no reason to expect deficits to cause inflation. ”
D选项:金融学家必须承认他们在认为赤字会引发通货膨胀率这一观点上有错误。这句话本身没有错误,但是错的是这里“admittedly”不是为了说明金融学家们必须承认他们有错,而是为了说明赤字会引发通货膨胀是有一定的原由的。
E选项:金融学家们通常不认为作者对于第二个论点的批评是值得考虑的。这个选项有些无稽之谈了,作为作者,怎么会在行文中目的是拆自己的台呢?所以这个选项不会是正确选项。
这句话是在表现金融学家的一种行为。
B E无关 C削弱作者观点 D话是符合作者观点,但是跟原文admittedly句话的内容无关,这句话就是讲了个金融学家的行为
A some truth=利率确实会上涨 not for the reasons=不是原文逻辑链导致利率上涨,而是金融学家的主观预测导致上涨
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论