ChaseDream

标题: GWD15－38 [打印本页]

作者: ZixiaXi92512 时间: 2008-2-17 01:59
标题: GWD15－38

Q38:

In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled “Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction” is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, “Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?” The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.

Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?

Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
The state law would not affect existing local ordinances banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard.

Answer: E

这道题实在读不懂题目在问什么，请大家帮忙指教一下～～～

作者: neo1001 时间: 2008-2-17 12:31
原文说：

在某个州，所有的城市和多数城镇都有反吸烟的法规。一个题目是"Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction"的请愿书正在被派发到选民手里。请愿书上仅仅问那些选民”Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?“ 那个请愿提倡通过一个州法，禁止在对公众开放的多数零售店铺和政府办公室吸烟。

问的是：下面那种情况会使请愿书对那些将它理解成一个将地方法规扩大到整个州的建议的选民产生歧义？

E说state law不会影响现有的地方法规，这个就和那些选民的理解有出入，因为他们的理解是"extending the local ordinances statewide"，既然是extend成statewide，那么state law就不会would not affect local ordianances.

作者: ZixiaXi92512 时间: 2008-2-17 14:33
谢谢neo~~~~

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)