1 Delta products, Inc., has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output, Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided that the level of output is held constant.
In the argument given, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles? A E
觉得应该是A呀?
- The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
- The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
- The first states the position that the argument opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument.
- Each provides evidence that calls the conclusion of the argument into question.
- Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
2 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?
C E
题目的意思是什么?
感觉像是说对那些以为要把地方禁止推广到全国的人来说是误导,那答案也就应该是不能把法案推倒全国。
那么C也是亚?
- 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