Some governments have tried to make alcohol and tobacco less attractive to consumers by regulating what can be shown in advertisements for these products, rather than by banning advertising of them altogether. However, the need to obey the letter of these restrictions has actually stimulated advertisers to create advertisements that are more inventive and humorous than they were prior to the restrictions’ introduction.
which of the following, if true, would, in conjunction with the statements above, best support the conclusion that the government policy described above fails to achieve its objective?
A) Because of the revenues gained from the sale of alcohol and tobacco, governments have no real interest in making these products less attractive to consumers.
B) Advertisers tend to create inventive and humorous advertisements only if they have some particular reason to do so.
C) Banning advertising of alcohol and tobacco is a particularly effective way of making these products less attractive to consumers.
D) With the policy in place, advertisements for alcohol and tobacco have become far more inventive and humorous than advertisements for other kinds of products.
E）The more inventive an advertisement is, the more attractive it makes the advertised product appear.
E我觉得没有任何问题，当时看了就觉得是正确答案，本身的趋势使得外因的做与不做都无所谓，所以削弱。但当时我特意选了A，觉得自己无法去排除A，主要是这样想的，政府根本没有兴趣去管制，为什么不能削弱原文呢？想纠正一下自己的思路，谢谢大家指点
xdf的老师笔记里是说削弱题需要削弱的是结论，或者从前提到结论的推理过程，不需要削弱前提~~~这个错误我以前也一直犯。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |