请高手赐教

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?

1. Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
2. In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
3. The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
4. There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
5. 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.

答案是E,彻底没有看懂，请高手赐教

这是一道WEAKEN题 原文叙述凌乱 但是结论给出 WEAKEN结论

既正确答案WEAKEN  The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public这句话

ABD选项无关 C选项有点迷惑性 关键在于supersede的理解 supersede有取代、延期的意思 如果是“取代”则支持结论 如果是“延期”则无关

E直接反对了结论 说明The state law无法影响existing local ordinances  所以那些petition的circulation没有实质效果 只会misleading 符合题干

你可能会想E项后半段有个限定条件就觉得范围不对 觉得E无关 事实上结论中的retail establishments、government offices 与 in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard是不冲突的 这也是“非充分性”的体现

关于“非充分性”的描述 见我另一篇分析

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=373276&page=1

还有WEAKEN题的最高原则

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=373158&page=1

祝好运！