gwd13-5 我的想法

Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

1. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.
           
2. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
           
3. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
           
4. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
           
5. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

Answer:

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=78057给出了好多讨论 集中在A和D上

大家看看E选项 把文中的meal tax偷换成了sale tax

事实上，sale tax=meal tax+ other tax(eg. performance tax), 禁烟餐厅的总营业额并不比非禁烟餐厅的高，政府所说的仅仅是某项营业额高，企图以偏概全

因此答案是E

大家的看法如何？

刚刚看到了其他的帖子，呵呵，解释地比较清楚了

嘻嘻 之前看的不细致，问得弱弱的啦