[語文] PP2-CR-59

[twlarrywu (我要雞妹雞妹)]

這題也是OG的..但還是搞不懂

59.     (33759-!-item-!-188;#058&007597)

Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected 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.

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.
->為什麼weaken?哪種weaken法?

(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware
that their deposits are insured by the government.
->為什麼支持?

(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.

麻煩各位了,Thanks~

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 118.168.75.75
推 filley:經濟學家的論點是有了存款保險的存在 就會降低存款人去選擇
→ filley:好的銀行的誘因 使銀行倒閉機會提高
→ filley:B是說 如果沒有了存款保險的存在 存款人擔心他們的錢會不見
→ filley:反而發生擠兌情況  推翻了原文假設的結果 所以weaken
→ filley:C是支持 是因為和原文所推演因果關係是一致的
推 Vinicks:我覺得(B)是看原文最後一段 假設存款人更有選擇能力的話
→ Vinicks:那個銀行就會需要去使得自己更安全以確保競爭優勢
→ Vinicks:而(B)選項卻說假如政府沒有擔保存款的話 更多的銀行倒閉
→ Vinicks:會發生由於人們恐懼銀行的倒閉 但是這和文章會後一段剛好
→ Vinicks:矛盾 因為文章最後說政府沒擔保 因此存款人會更小心
→ Vinicks:而更小心的情況下 會使得銀行更安全 因此應該會使銀行
→ Vinicks:倒閉減少 而(B)內文卻是說增加 因此削弱 解釋好多 請見諒
→ Vinicks:另外我解釋的也不一定對@@" 開放討論^O^
→ twlarrywu:感謝各位詳細解說,小弟感激不盡~~~~~!!!!