难题！天山－4－38

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.

好难，主要是不明白它到底问的是什么。Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide? 这句话怎么理解，谁能翻译一下？我的感觉是：下面哪种情况会使这个请愿书成为对（把这个请愿理解为“把地方法规全州化”的）投票人的广泛传播的误导。可是，这句话啥意思？是不是说，使这个请愿书成为一种误导（说这个请愿不是要把地方法规全州化而实际上它就是地方法规全州化） 可是我还是不知道选什么 考试碰到就惨了，谁对这个题有研究，指点指点吧！

for your reference

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=83280&page=1

答案应该为B。

选民的误解在于：他们认为该建议是将禁烟扩大到整个state。而根据原文，他们的建议只是in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public禁烟。所以如果如B所说在rural areas ，这些地方很少，那选民的想法实际落空。即他们的建议是蒙选民的。E错在消防部门指定为禁烟区的，建议并不是取消它，选民并不存在MISLEADING。

经过思考我认为lawyer分析的有道理，刚看题的时候我就觉得B长得比较像这类题的答案，就是对文中一个具体细节举出了一个反例，但是对问题不理解所以觉得B无关，经过你们点播，我的感觉是这样：问题问的是：出现下面那种情况这个请愿书就广泛的误导了一些请愿支持者（这些人希望这个请愿书能够把地方的禁烟规定全州化）。从题目中我们看到这个请愿书只是要求政府立法对两个地方进行禁烟（most retail establishments 和 government offices that are open to the public），但是搞这个请愿活动的人却并不说清楚，他们只说“Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?”于是那些不很了解请愿书的实际内容而只想推行全州禁烟的人就vote for这个请愿书了。但是对于那些农村的人们来说他们那里根本没有什么retail establishments 和 government offices that are open to the public，所以他们vote for这个请愿书根本没用，只是浪费了那一腔热情啊！他们被那些campaign workers给误导了！

所以这么看来，其他选项都无关，只有B切中要害！

1。该问题的误解是宣传上的误解（circulated misleading）

2。在宣传时工人的做法是ask only：你支持全州禁烟吗。选民对这句口号的反应是：要全州全面禁烟啦。至于原文的最后一句话是说明这些工人实际想禁烟的地方，并没有在宣传中讲。这本身就已造成一个circulated misleading。它实质上是为B作铺垫。选项B的circumstances和原文的最后一句话说明该计划的全州禁烟作用很小。而选民的期望肯定认为要全州全面禁烟，且有不小的作用。如果选民认为该计划的真相是指部分禁烟且在rual作用是很少的，会支持他们吗。在这点上作宣传的工人和选民的认识是不同的(误解误导：misleading)

我认为是这样，作用小不等于没做用，只要有一点积极作用那些人为什么不支持？所谓不以善小而不为嘛。比他们想象的作用小，的确有一些误导的感觉，就好像有人跟我说“你中大奖啦！”结果发现奖金一毛。 但是，你看C，误导的更厉害，不但没有积极效果还有反作用，很多人生活在禁烟令非常严格的地区，当他们听说这个请愿书的时候第一个反映出来的是自己村的这种禁烟制度要扩散到全州啦，多好呀，支持啊！结果州的法令一下来，比原来那个村的法规松多了，而且还把原来那个严格的地方法规给替换了，你说那些人能愿意么？我觉得这才叫彻底误导了呢！

大家看呢？