一道题（兼论如何理解结论。分析见30楼）

lawyer_1

One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising campaign in local newspapers which it financed by imposing a tax on cigarettes of 20 cents per pack。 One year later the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes had declined by 3 percent。 Clearly what was said in the advertisements had an effect， although a small one on the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen argument?

(A) Residents of the locality have not increased their use of other tobacco products such as snuff and chewing tobacco since the campaign went into effect

(B) A substantial number of cigarette smokers in the locality who did not quit smoking during the campaign now smoke less than they did before it began

(C) Admissions to the local hospital for chronic respiratory ailments were down by 15 percent one year after the campaign began

(D) Merchants in the locality responded to the local tax by reducing the price at which they sold cigarettes by 20 cents per pack

(E) Smokers in the locality had incomes that on average were 25 percent lower than those of nonsmokers

paopao

我选A

前提 禁烟广告后 抽烟的人减少 结论禁烟广告使抽烟的人减少

这是after this and therefore because of this的错误

加强 1没有其它原因使抽烟的人减少 2 没禁烟 抽烟的人多 3数据准确

A 排除了因为使用tobacoo product的原因使抽烟的人减少 加强了结论

B 我差一点选了 讲的抽烟的人减少烟量 这跟原文是out of scope 原文的结论是禁烟广告使抽烟的人减少即已戒烟 减少吸烟量与原文无关

C讲到呼吸疾病的人减少 这是常见的trick. 因为原文并没有讲到因为抽烟使人得呼吸疾病

D 商业反映 无关 原文的结论是禁烟广告使抽烟的人减少 而商业人士如何反映与结论无关

E 抽烟的人收入相对少 无关 因为原文并没有讲因为抽烟使收入少

顺便削弱一下

其它原因使抽烟的人减少 没有禁烟广告抽烟的人也减少

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-10 10:35:57编辑过]

robertchu

D.  D eliminates an alternative explanation, thus strengthens the original argument.

leeon

我选B;

原文得结论是禁烟的广告有效。

A说那些居民没有增加使用其它烟草产品，原文只是tax on cigarettes，因此效果必须和cigarettes密切相关。A的其它烟草产品是无关选项。

B说那些没有戒烟的人抽的烟比禁烟前少。说明了禁烟的效果。

C,D,E明显的无关选项。

leeon

D不能加强结论，原文政府禁烟是通过征税的方式来进行的。因此禁烟导致的香烟价格上涨是居民戒烟的一个原因。如果是D变成了不是价格影响戒烟，也就是说既有可能是禁烟广告以外的原因导致戒烟。因此D不但不能加强，反倒有一点削弱的味道。

bryan0806

我选B

差点选了A  但是仔细想A应该是out of scope 因为原文讲antismoking  not antitabocco

bryan0806

我选B

差点选了A  但是仔细想A应该是out of scope 因为原文讲antismoking  not antitabocco

bryan0806

我选B

差点选了A  但是仔细想A应该是out of scope 因为原文讲antismoking  not antitabocco

sunday_zhou

同意B。A应该是与结论无关的选项，因为结论是围绕smoker来说的；B则是完全围绕smoker进行的阐述，即即使仍然有smoker，但smoker抽的量因为广告的原因也减少了。

davidcopper

我选A, 通过排除他因加强说明正是advertise导致smoking减少

关于strengthen的途径二楼的解释很完善