※ 引述《denizee3 (妮 快瘋了!!!)》之銘言： : 56. Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. : However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world : average，per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world : average，and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. : Therefore，since per capita income continues to rise， : whereas domestic grain production will not increase， : Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both． : Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? : (A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland : will not decrease substantially 把NOT去掉,意思是這國家的種稻面機會大量下降,符合原文,無法反駁 : (B) The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during : the country's years of growing prosperity. 人口總數的變動不是題目重點,縱使人口下降,但每人平均食肉量大幅增加,也無法反駁 : (C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same : across all income levels． 各階層間每人食肉量也不是重點,縱使各階層差異大,但總食肉量還是大增,也無法反駁 : (D) In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price : controls． 這選項....價格穩定與否不是重點 : (E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not : radically decrease their consumption of grain． 去掉NOT,國民增加食肉量同時,會大幅下降實用穀物量,所以並非會造成穀物不夠需進口 之情形發生,同時被減少的穀物又能拿來飼養產生更多肉品,所以肉品也未必會短缺 固反駁原文!!! 是反駁的反駁法 : 答案是E. : 我看了後面的解釋..感覺好像稍微懂為什麼是E但是又好像沒有完全懂 : 是否請各位賢人能夠幫忙解釋一下呢? : 感激不盡! <(__ __)> --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.252.80