2. The author’s method of attacking the charges of certain opponents of the new deficit-reduction law is to
(A) attack the character of the opponents rather than their claim
(B) imply an analogy between the law and some New Deal programs
(C) point out that the opponents’ claims imply a dilemma
(D) show that the opponents’ reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion
(E) show that the New Deal also called for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget
3. The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
4. In Millington, a city of 50,000 people, Mercedes Pedrosa, a realtor, calculated that a family with Millington’s median family income, $28,000 a year, could afford to buy Millington’s median-priced $77,000 house. This calculation was based on an 11.2 percent mortgage interest rate and on the realtor’s assumption that a family could only afford to pay up to 25 percent of its income for housing.
【2013年GMAT考试最新逻辑推理试题训练七】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04
2016-03-04