下面的这5道题目对应的是从题目翻译、选项分析两方面讲解的，为大家还原了问题的思路，大家可以学习一下。
GWD-12
Q2:
Scientists are discussing ways to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by increasing the amount that is absorbed by plant life. One plan to accomplish this is to establish giant floating seaweed farms in the oceans. When the seaweed plants die, they will be disposed of by being burned for fuel.
科学家在商量着怎么样让植物去吸收更多的碳二氧化物以去除大气层中过量的碳二氧化物。其中一个方案就是在海洋中建立极大面积的漂浮海藻养殖场，当海藻生物失去生命时，他们可以被作为燃料。(多的海藻就可以多的吸收碳二氧化物，而当它们不能吸收时，还可以变成某种燃料)
Which of the following, if true, would indicate the most serious weakness in the plan above?
Some areas of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere do not contain sufficient nutrients to support large seaweed farms. 一些海域不适合，那也可以在其它适合的海域建立这样的养殖场呀。反对意见不成立。
When a seaweed plant is burned, it releases an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to the amount it has absorbed in its lifetime.吸收了半天等于没吸引，达到的实际目的和希望目的是相反的，所以不是好主意。正确。
Even if seaweed farms prove effective, some people will be reluctant to switch to this new fuel.不管有些人用不用这个燃料，它可以当成燃料用是事实。而且此题的关键不在于燃料，而在于变成燃料前是否可以用来降低大气层中的碳二氧化物。
Each year about seven billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere but only about five billion tons are absorbed by plant life.所以科学家在想办法让植物吸引更多的碳二氧化物呀，这个选项没有评价题干的中具体方案的有效性或正确性，所以无关。
Seaweed farms would make more money by farming seaweed to sell as nutritional supplements than by farming seaweed to sell as fuel. 怎么用这个海藻是不在讨论范围内的，这个选项好象是想让你想到在它没死亡之前人们就会把它从海里弄出来去卖钱。这个外加的条件有一个不明确处：海藻什么时候作为营养补充物来出售?是在它死亡之前还是之后?如果是之后那就是加强科学家的提议：在它可以吸收碳二氧化物的时候当环保物品用，在它不能当环保物品时要么可以当燃料，要么可以当营养品卖。一举两得。如果是在之前，那么没有条件显示把已经在海里的弄起来了就不能马上放新的进去，如果是这样，那也没有起到削弱的作用。所以总的说来，这个选项既没起到加强科学家的提议作用也没起到削弱作用，所以无关。
Q11:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.
一般说来，在经济不景气的时候找工作比较难，因为这时候很多公司都在削减运作成本。但是在V地，即使以后有经济不景气的时候，公办学校中的教师职位不会受到减少。因为V地刚刚开始执行一个法规规定无论在什么样的经济情况下，V地的孩子在公办学校的免费教育得到必须保证，而且学生和老师之间的比例不能超出现有的比例。
(学生和老师的比例等于学生人数是分子，老师人数比例是分母。比例越大说明学生变多了或者老师变少了-----此注解专门加给象我一样对数字没概念的难兄难弟难姐难妹们，有数字概念的请略过这几行，并请不要笑话我们)
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?(找一个出来支持这个公立学校里面的老师职位不会减少，或者说去公立学校应征老师比找其它工作容易)
The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession. 现在的比例超出了任何经济不景气时候的比例。这个选项有两个可挑剔处：第一，结论是说现在的老师职位不会减少。所以即使现在的老师很少，但只要以后不会更少，那这个结论就没有错。但是这个选项并没有让我们知道以后是可能还是不可能减少老师的人数。第二，以前的经济有多不景气不等于以后的景气就会有同样的不景气程度。如果超过了以前的不景气程度，这个选项并没有让我们相信现在的老师就会丢饭碗。
During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees. 那么如果经济不景气，这些孩子是不是就不可能继续在私立学校读书而会转到公立学校来呢?如果那样的话学生人数就会增加。而法规规定学生和老师的比例不能超过现在的比例，那么学生如果增加的话，老师必然也只能增加=有更多的老师的职位。如果私立学校的学生即使退学也不去公立学校的话，那么分子不增加，分母也不增加=题干中的不会减少现有的老师数量。正确。
Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.现在的老师数量超过上一次不景气前的老师数量。关于和上一次不景气的比较不成立，理由见A。
Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers. 这个选项的第一问题是教师的收入和公立学校的老师职位是没有必然联系的，只能推出说有可能私立学校的老师想跳槽到公立学校。但是不是想去就能去在题干和选项中找不到支持。因为如果学生不增加的话，公立学校即使遵守法规也没有必要增加老师。所以问题的关键在于要先有学生人数会增加或者不减少的前提，才会有增加或者不减少老师职位的结论。
During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded和上一次不景气的比较不成立，理由见A。
Q12: GWD-13-27
Which if the following, if true, most logically completes the argument?
Aroca County’s public schools are supported primarily by taxes on property. The county plans to eliminate the property tax and support schools with a new three percent sales tax on all retail items sold in the county. Three percent of current retail sales is less than the amount collected through property taxes, but implementation of the plan would not necessarily reduce the amount of money going to Aroca County public schools, because ______.
A国的公立学校的资金大多是来自地产税。最近政府计划不再用征收的地产税来负担公立学校，而采取对所有的零售商品税收3%的销售税，并用这个税收来支付公立学校的费用。尽管这个销售税的收入是少于地产税的收入，但是这个举措不会让公立学校收到比以前更少的钱，因为。。。。
A. many Aroca County residents have already left the county because of its high property taxes 交物产税的人少了，但是因为用的是现在完全式，而题干中的事实之一：现在的销售税收入少于物产税收入是用的现在时。也就是说即使有人搬离了，但是总的物产税的收入仍然高于零售销售税的收入。
a shopping mall likely to draw shoppers from neighboring counties is about to open in Aroca County 销售税会增多。这个用的是be about to(如果出现在SC里是错误标志喔，因为不简洁----提醒大家一个SC小语法点，嘿嘿)表示将来的而且是马上就会发生的状况，正确。
at least some Aroca County parents are likely to use the money they will save on property taxes to send their children to private schools not funded by the county不交税后孩子也不去公立学校了。这样有可能会减少公立学校的开支，但结论是公学校的收入不会减少。所以无关。
a significant proportion of parents of Aroca County public school students do not own their homes and consequently do not pay property taxes 以前开始的物产税征税对象也不限于学生家长，所以这个选项不能说明继续收物产税的话，这个税收会下降，也没有信息提供让我们知道零售税会增加(题干中说的很清楚，现在的两个税收收入是物产税大于销售税)所以这个无关。
retailers in Aroca County are not likely to absorb the sales tax by reducing the pretax price of their goods 是零售商还是消费者来承担这个税收对政府来说没有区别，也对公立学校的收入没有影响。所以无关。
Q15:
FastMart, a convenience store chain, is planning to add pancake syrup to the items it sells. FastMart stores do not have shelf space to stock more than one variety of syrup. Surveys of FastMart customers indicate that one-fourth of them prefer low-calorie syrup, while three-fourths prefer regular syrup. Since FastMart’s highest priority is to maximize sales, the obvious strategy for it is to stock regular syrup.
一个连锁便利店F准备在货架上增加薄煎饼糖浆。但是它们的货架只能放下一种糖浆。于是F公司就在它的消费者中进行了一次民意调查，调查发现四分之一的接受调查者倾向于买低热量的，而另外四分之三则偏好常规的糖浆。因为F公司是要最大化的实现销售，所以对F公司来说最好的选择就是卖常规的糖浆。
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? (找一个不卖常规糖浆的理由先)
A: People buying pancake syrup at convenience stores, unlike those buying it at supermarkets, generally buy it only a few times.即使来的不多，来了买就行。问题是买哪种呀?
People who prefer low-calorie syrup generally use about the same amount of syrup on their pancakes as those who prefer regular syrup.既然用量没差别，那买频率也应该没区别。那这个选项倒底想支持哪个提议呢?看不懂就当无关处理吧。
Regular syrup does not sell for a higher price per unit than low-calorie syrup.价格一样?同B一样。
In general, customers who prefer regular syrup will buy low-calorie syrup if regular is unavailable, but those who prefer low-calorie will not buy regular syrup.对了就是它。喜欢买常规的如果只有低卡的也会买，而如果只买低卡的是不会买常规的。也就是说如果货架上只有常规的话，有1/4的想买糖浆的顾客会不买;而如果货架上是低卡的话，需要买糖浆的都会买。正确。
Sales of syrup are not expected to account for a large proportion of total dollar sales at the average FastMart store.卖糖浆和整个销售量的比例不在讨论范围，哪怕是再小的比例，F公司也要让它在可能范围内卖得最多。无关选项。。
您还可能关注：
