很奇怪这道题以前没有被讨论过。希望得到牛牛们的指点! Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? (A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teen-agers.. (B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking. (C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. (D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. (E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.
OG解释: If tobacco advertising were the only factor that affected teenage smoking, there would be a difference in the prevalence of smoking between countries that ban such advertising and those that do not. According to the passage, there is no difference, so tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor. Therefore, choice A is the best answer. 我认为A不对:
"有人认为advertising --> teenagers smoking ;however, Norway的例子:ban the advertising--> no difference". 从这个逻辑里,我们不能得到advertising是否对smoking造成影响的判断,而A选项却肯定了advertising的作用。 我认为C选项更符合原文的的direct reasoning. 望牛人指点 谢谢!
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-2-17 15:15:38编辑过] |