In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?
In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarettesales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.
Which of the following, if true, could most strengthen the argument above?
(A) During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.
(B) The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.
(C) Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.
(D) During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.
(E) During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the markey than there had been during the previous year.
答案是B,对于B没有疑问;想不通这个C。在manhattan上看到了跟我想的一样的一个提问:
Doesn't choice C also eliminate a potential cause to the effect that cigarette sales decrease is due to after-tax price?
My reasons: If consumers were aware of the tax increase, they would have bought more cigarette packs before such increase (this is a very reasonable assumption just as assuming health risks to be a cause of declining sales for choice B).
Logic: Aware beforehand so consumers buy more --> After increase consumers do not buy or buy at a normal rate --> hence the 'comparitive' decrease.
Is my argument anywhere close to sensible thinking?
Ron的解释:
this doesn't work. in general, the statements "if X happens, then Y will happen" and "if X doesn't happen, then Y won't happen" are unrelated to each other.
for instance,
if i win the lottery, then i will be very happy
--> according to your logic, this would mean that i will actually be unhappy if i don'twin the lottery.
i think you see the problem here.
谢谢回复,疑问如下
Doesn't choice C also eliminate a potential cause to the effect that cigarette sales decrease is due to after-tax price?
My reasons: If consumers were aware of the tax increase, they would have bought more cigarette packs before such increase (this is a very reasonable assumption just as assuming health risks to be a cause of declining sales for choice B).
Logic: Aware beforehand so consumers buy more --> After increase consumers do not buy or buy at a normal rate --> hence the 'comparitive' decrease.
Is my argument anywhere close to sensible thinking?