2009 高考經濟學選擇題答案

* Students may find the data for Q7 and Q8 confusing. Able candidates, however, will notice that no available options are consistent with the assumption of a closed economy and will avail themselves of the figures provided for X and M in the calculation.

** Most candidates would implicitly assume identical horizontal shift of IS curves, therefore choosing C as the answer.

STATEMENT

It is my deepest regret that the MC answers I posted on the web this evening (2 Apr 2009) contains material typographical errors — the correct answers for the two items B and A were mistyped as A and B. I was informed of such error by my assistant only several hours later, and I hereby apologize to you all for the more than obvious errors which I overlooked.

To clarify any misunderstanding the errors may have caused to students, I feel an obligation to explain to all readers who may have been confused by the errors on the two questions.

Q11.

Option A: The law of demand only implies a downward sloping demand curve, saying nothing about the price elasticity, and the “change by a smaller amount” in the option itself has nothing to do with price elasticity without mentioning percentage change. In a word, it’s a totally irrelevant option.

Option B: A higher income tax exemption for children lowers the cost of raising children, implying an increase in birth rate.

Q12:

Option A: Consumer surplus is extracted with two-part pricing, which should be a standard textbook analysis.

Option B: Charging a uniform price would not extract any consumer surplus. In this case, the two groups of people are simply charged two different uniform prices, therefore implying no extraction of consumer surplus.

聲明

是晚 (09年4月2日) 本人於網上發佈的選擇題答案有排版錯誤，其中 B 及 A 答案分別誤排作 A 及 B，對此本人深感抱歉。本人於幾小時後才獲告知此兩項錯誤，在此本人向所有讀者道歉，竟忽略了如此明顯的錯誤。

此錯誤可能讓讀者感到混亂，本人認為有必要在此向各位就該兩條題目作出解釋。

第十一題

A 選項：需求定律只意味着向右下傾斜的需求曲線，對需求彈性並無任何含意；而選項中「需求量的轉變會較小」，在沒有指明百比份的改變的情況下，本身亦與需求彈性無關。簡言之，這是毫不相關的選項。

B 選項：免稅額提高減少養育子女的代價，這意味着較高的出生率。

第十二題

A 選項：兩部定價榨取消費者盈餘，這是標準教科書的分析。

B 選項：收取單一價格不會榨取任何消費者盈餘。這個案只是向兩組人分別收取不同的單一價格，因此並沒有榨取消費者盈餘。