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?
A. Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
B. In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
C. The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
D. There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
E. 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.
原文是一帮人请愿希望扩大禁止在公共场所抽烟的范围到州级，E 说即使你扩大到了州级对你目前已定的禁烟场所没有影响，白干。呵呵~
我也觉得是C，因为MISLEADING的地方在于新的PETITION实际上并不是简单的EXTANDING，新的PETITION把原来的LOCAL规矩WEAKEN了。
ps. "ordinances, which contain stronger" 好像不符合ETS的语法规定？？
莎莎，这题藕被你问蒙了，只看题干没看懂。要结合原文看，原文讲的是一个请愿希望在全州范围内禁止在零售店和政府机关的公共场合吸烟。
题干问的是下面那种情形会使这个请愿被误解为请求将禁烟范围由地方城镇到整个州。
E说这个（被请愿的）州法，不会影响现有的地方法律。（也就是说，如果VOTER理解为被请愿的州法是扩大禁烟范围，那么VOTER就是MISUNDERSTANDING 了。
搞了半天這题挺繞的,,..昏...
我觉得这道题的解决关键在题目的问法。
Misleading means contrary to or weaken the argument of as extending the local ordinances statewide
题目的逻辑推导过程：
Real: all cities and most towns;
Petition: state
A: irrelevant
B: irrelevant
C: 地方法律从属于州法，support
D: 国家范围内存在其他想法，irrelevant
E：州法在有些地区无效, weaken.
So E.
继续讨论
建议把bryan0806给的链接加进天山讨论汇总
(虽然我不同意他给的答案，呵呵)
本来看到这个帖子已经要被e说服了
翻了那边十页左右的贴，才确定是c
其实这题还是难在理解题目上
我也同意C。
B should be the right answer.
The argument is talking about why it is misleading.
The voters misunderstand that the law will be extended to the whole state to ban smoking everywhere (not only in retail establishments and in government offices.)because the campaign workers only ask “Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?” the workers do not say clearly that it is only for retail establishments and in government offices.
The result will lead to the voters' disappointment b/c they are not going to see smoking banned statewide because:1) all cities and most towns already have antismoking ordinances (stated by the original argument),
and 2) In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.(stated by choice B).
Hence, in rural area, smoking ban or not, you are not going to see much change.
C is not related.
晕了
问题是：在什么情况下，这个情愿会让人认为要把local法令扩展到state wide？（我觉得这边misleading不重要，这是为了映证人们的这个想法和请愿书最初的想法不同。文中已说人们的想法是“extending the local ordinances statewde”，而请愿书则想说“banning smoking in most retails establishments and government...”。所以这两个想法本身就不同，我们不要在这个上纠结）
如何解题：看到请愿书的人会怎么想？他们的思维方式是，请愿书是为了改变现状，那么与现状相反的内容就是请愿书的内容。五个答案中，描述的就是现状，我们把答案取反，如果能够得出的内容是：让地方法取代州法，那么就是正确答案了。这里要注意的是，不是请愿书误导了大家，而是现状。
所以我认为，答案是C
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |