Rohto's CR 难题集
Rohto
Rohto
against bank failure because the government insures all individuals'
bank deposits．An economist argues that this insurance is partly
responsible for the high rate of bank failures，since it removes from
depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that
holds their money is secure against failure．If depositors were more
selective，then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for
depositors' money
46．Which of the following，if true，most seriously weakens the
economist's argument?
(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank
failure，there was a lower rate of bank failure than there is now．
(B) When the government did not insure deposits，frequent bank
failures occurred as a result of depositors' fears of losing money in
bank failures．
(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are
aware that their deposits are insured by the government．
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit
that the government will insure，but very few individuals' deposits
exceed this limit．
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage
of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk its loans
involve．
Argument Evaluation
Situation An economist contends that the high rate of bank failures
can partly be blamed on federal insurance of bank deposits．The
insurance removes any financial incentive for depositors to seek those
banks that are the most secure against failure．In the absence of more
selective depositors，the banks need not be secure to compete for
deposits．(The same as the item above．)
Reasoning What point most weakens the economist's argument? The
economist identifies federal insurance of deposits as a partial cause
of the high rate of bank failures，citing depositors' complacency
regarding the safety of their savings and their resultant lack of
concern about the banks' being secure．What circumstance might have 1ed
to frequent bank failures before the federal insurance program
started? If banks often failed because depositors acted on their fears
that their savings were in jeopardy, then the economist's conclusion
blaming the program is weakened．
A If there was a lower rate of bank failure before federal
insurance，then the economist's argument is supported，not weakened．
B Correct．This statement properly identifies a factor that weakens
the economist's argument．
C The knowledge that their deposits are insured no matter which bank
they choose may lead depositors to be 1ess selective in their choice
of bank；this statement supports rather than weakens the argument．
D Since most depositors are covered by federal insurance．they can
continue to be less selective in choosing a bank，and thus the argument
is not weakened．
E Nothing in this statement about assets and risks is linked to
federal insurance of deposits, so this statement is irrelevant to the
argument．
The correct answer is B．
我觉得这题比较难在于partly responsible for 的限定，思路上不清晰，只是隐隐觉得需要考虑到因果关系和时间因素
(confusing)；
对E考了很就觉得也能作为答案，查了一下CD, 对E的解释 粘贴如下：
Note that the economist's argument is that the insurance is partly
responsible for the high rate of bank failures. He does not assert
that the insurance is the solely responsible. Therefore, providing
alternative reason, as (E) does, cannot weaken the economist's
argument. After all, the economist's conclusion does not exclude other
reasons. Therefore (E) is incorrect.