【OG24-543题】Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?_mofa留学圈mofaGRE在线题库系统_GRE在线搜题_GRE题库解析_GRE真题机经_GRE课程_GRE培训机构

最新题目

题目内容

纠错

During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America focused on the impact of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Most of these historians argued that although the Depression began earlier in Latin America than in the United States, it was less severe in Latin America and did not significantly impede industrial growth there. The historians' argument was grounded in national government records concerning tax revenues and exports and in government-sponsored industrial censuses, from which historians have drawn conclusions about total manufacturing output and profit levels across Latin America. However, economic statistics published by Latin American governments in the early twentieth century are neither reliable nor consistent; this is especially true of manufacturing data, which were gathered from factory owners for taxation purposes and which therefore may well be distorted. Moreover, one cannot assume a direct correlation between the output level and the profit level of a given industry as these variables often move in opposite directions. Finally, national and regional economies are composed of individual firms and industries, and relying on general, sweeping economic indicators may mask substantial variations among these different enterprises. For example, recent analyses of previously unexamined data on textile manufacturing in Brazil and Mexico suggest that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on this Latin American industry than scholars had recognized.

Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?

It did not impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historians had previously thought. It had a more severe impact on the Brazilian and the Mexican textile industries than it had on Latin America as a region. It affected the Latin American textile industry more severely than it did any other industry in Latin America. The overall impact on Latin American industrial growth should be reevaluated by economic historians. Its impact on Latin America should not be compared with its impact on the United States.

正确答案： D

参考解析

提交我的解析

文章大意逻辑
20世纪80年代，许多研究拉丁美洲的经济史学家聚焦于20世纪30年代大萧条的影响。多数史学家认为，尽管大萧条在拉丁美洲比在美国更早开始，但在拉丁美洲程度较轻，且对当地工业增长没有显著阻碍，其观点基于国家政府税收、出口记录和政府赞助的工业普查。然而，20世纪初拉丁美洲政府发布的经济统计数据既不可靠也不一致，制造业数据尤其如此，且不能假定产出水平和利润水平有直接关联，同时依赖总体经济指标可能掩盖企业间差异。例如，对巴西和墨西哥纺织制造业先前未审查数据的分析表明，大萧条对该行业的影响比学者们认知的更严重。 文章类型及逻辑简图
文章类型：新旧观点对比 逻辑简图： 1980s, economic historians: Great Depression less severe in Latin America, didn't impede industrial growth (based on records and censuses) However, economic statistics not reliable or consistent Moreover, no direct correlation between output and profit levels Finally, overall indicators may mask variations Example: textile manufacturing in Brazil and Mexico, Depression's impact more severe than recognized 做题方法及问题类型
问题类型：推断题 做题方法：根据文章对大萧条在拉丁美洲影响的论述进行合理推断，定位关键在于理解文中对经济史学家观点的反驳及新证据。 选项分析
A选项：文中未提及与“historians had previously thought”的比较，无法得出该结论，排除。 B选项：文章仅以巴西和墨西哥纺织业为例说明影响严重，未与拉丁美洲整体作对比，排除。 C选项：文中没有将纺织业与其他行业受影响程度作比较，排除。 D选项：因为文中指出之前经济史学家依据不可靠数据得出大萧条对拉丁美洲工业增长影响不大的结论，且新证据显示影响更严重，所以整体影响应重新评估，该项正确。 E选项：文章重点在讨论大萧条对拉丁美洲的影响，而非与美国影响的比较，排除。

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

还没有人评论,赶快抢个沙发~

做题笔记

参考解析

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

请选择错误类型：

请描述一下这个错误：