GWD13-5

没有搜到前面的讨论。

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q5:

Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants.  The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded.  Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago.  Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland.  The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

1. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.

2. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.

3. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.

4. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.

5. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

答案是D。为什么C不对？

问题是undermines the defense of the government’s plan，政府为自己辩护说禁烟不会影响餐馆的收入(政府结论)，因为有例子说明了这一点，削弱只能从政府举的例子削弱或者及削弱政府的结论，c选项Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland说在前五年吸烟已经稳定的下降，既不能削弱结论也不能削弱事实基础，而d选项说因为这些餐馆因为还有一部分地方吸烟所以收入上升了，就是说政府举的例子实际上是不可靠的，这些餐馆都不是完全意义上的禁烟的餐馆

理解了。自己竟然看错了题目。

问的是反对政府

原文先说了政府，后说了反对政府

错把问题理解为如何反对后面反对政府的观点

谢谢！