请教一题逻辑！！大全 test D-11

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.

(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.

(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private

(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

为啥选A呢？请教牛牛们~~

BCDE都可以无关排除法干掉，B里的public school文中没提到，所有关于public school的推论都是错误的，C同理，D中的only that……some kind 是无关的，D luxury是无关的。

A是正确的在于用了一个单词analogy，类似！ gloria说上私立学校的没使用政府服务，所以不应该强迫收取tax，但那些选瓶装水的却没有因此豁免交税。

roger说孩子是被法律要求上学的，既然上学不是选择去不去，而是法律要求，所以它是不公平的。

而gloria反驳他用的是：尽管喝水不是法律规定的，但是它是所有人必须的（也就是说不是你选择喝还是不喝），因此从这点上是相似的