标题: 请教一到题～ 能分析一下这道题的逻辑链吗？答案选D [打印本页] 作者: biyichen 时间: 2017-9-6 21:13 标题: 请教一到题～ 能分析一下这道题的逻辑链吗？答案选D Vorland's government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants' revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants' revenues.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government's plan?
A.When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants' revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.
B.The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
C.Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
D.In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
E.Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. 作者: Clara0812 时间: 2017-9-7 18:10
题目问削弱对政府计划的维护，也就是加强反对政府计划的选项
首先这个论证利用了类比，说一些城镇执行了禁烟，而他们的meal tax上升了，从而来推导出V国执行禁烟也可以达到饭店收入不会下降的结论（defense)
这个论证假设了这些城镇和V国的条件是一样的，即因为城镇餐厅的收入能增加，V国餐厅也能一样增加
那么削弱就要攻击这个假设从而推翻类比，D选项就说了：有些禁烟的城镇允许餐厅保留一个单独的吸烟室. 而题干中说V国并没有提出这一个点，只说了禁烟，所以这就是他们的不同之处，城镇餐厅收入增加可能是在营造了好的就餐环境从而吸引更多顾客的同时，没有减少吸烟顾客的数量，所以他们的收入增加了
这是我的个人理解，不知道你能不能理解