- UID
- 719480
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-8
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer.But no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger.So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.
Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:
(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.
(B)The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt heathly lifestyles.
(C)The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
(D)The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities
(E)The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.
Seems a very wierd question to me. OA is C.
is it that in LSAT's eye, "irrelevant" could be categorized into "consistent"? |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-17 00:33:11
收藏
收藏
