Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
(注释：priced out of the market：因价高而被挤出市场)
Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970’s than it did in the 1960’s.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.
看完问题，发现是削弱题;再读原文，意思不难，很快提炼出其逻辑为
如果国会制定更低的teenagers低工资===》teenagers的失业率将不再上升
显然，正确选项首先要涉及低工资和失业率之间的关系，而其他内容则为无关信息，可以排除
显然A 和B都是相关的
而C在谈季节问题，D和E没有涉及失业率快慢的原因，都与原文逻辑无关，通通排除。
所以只需要仔细审视A和B
A “低工资上升的时候，失业率上升”，这与原文逻辑(更低工资将导致失业率不上升)形成了“反因反果”的关系，所以是加强。(比如：“不长跑的人不长寿”加强了“长跑的人长寿”)
勤学教育网
