我试着解释看看 广告中主要的论点是:市长虽然把一些工作给拿掉了 但是他也新增了些工作 并且 这些新工作的平均薪资高於所有工作的平均 表面看来 好像是个德政 问题在於 万一他删掉的那些工作 平均薪水若高於 他新增工作的平均薪水 会导致全部工作的平均薪水下降 这样还不如不要删掉原来的工作 唯一能解套的 就是他删掉的那些工作 不是些高薪的工作 这样的话 就不会压低全部工作的平均薪水 所以D的说明很合理:删掉的工作平均薪水跟原来所有工作的平均薪水相当 这样他们被删掉 没影响到整体平均 而又加上些高薪工作(题目说的) 这样全市的平均薪水会因此而拉高些--->德政成立 ※ 引述《minimumi (米尼)》之铭言： : ★ Q14: : Political Advertisement: : Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in : the city under Delmont's leadership. Yet the fact is that not only : were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for : these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide : every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that : throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this city has been : getting steadily bigger. : Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in : the advertisement? : A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years : was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier : in Mayor Delmont’s tenure. : B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took : office. : C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have : in the meantime been eliminated again. : D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's : tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs : citywide. : E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for : jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city. : 这题答案是(D) : CR总结上有详细的解答~但是没看懂 : "仅仅对比了新增工作机会和就任以来全市平均收入，如果不对比新增工作机会 : 和减少工作机会的平均收入哪个高（A），仍然有可能总收入是下降的。新增 : 的工作收入高，所以只要去掉的工作收入一样，总平均收入还是高的。所以D对。" : 有没有比较简单易懂的方法可以解释选项(D)对的原因 : (不太能懂那些收入之间的关系~脑筋转不过来..) : 谢谢! -- No doubt, just keep walking --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.168.86.30