以下是引用pinkcutie在2006-11-12 20:56:00的发言: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?
- Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
- In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
- The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
- There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
- 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.
这道题想了很久,顺着答案E的思路谈点个人看法: 题干: 很多州的城镇都有禁烟法令,一份被冠以“要求全州推广禁烟法”的请愿书被分发到投票人手中,而只被问及“你是否愿意签署这份全州推广禁烟令的请愿书”。这份请愿书的真正目的是要求州法律在零售或者政府服务等向公众开放的部门禁烟。 问题:下列何种情况会使投票人产生“将地方法令推广到全州”的误解 分析: 要使投票人的这一误解成立,必须满足条件即,州法律会沿用目前的地方法令,不做更改,如果州法律会更改或取代目前的地方法令,那么就不可能产生“将地方法令推广到全州”的误解 所以答案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. 州法律不会影响现存的地方禁烟法令。。。。。应该是最合适的 不知道我的理解对不对,请指正 |