求助大全

meckychen

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.

Ans：A

实在看不懂什么意思，请帮我分析一下。
谢谢。

Rebeldom

我看这个题目的时候,我觉得A和D都有可能,但是后来看要REFUTE ROGER的观点
ROGER的观点是你的观点是不逻辑的,所以我们只要证明我们的观点是逻辑的就可以了
ROGER说上学是必须的(法律规定的),但是喝水也是一样,也是必须的(生理需求的),这样GLORIA的解释就符合逻辑了
所以A,主要是为了证明GLORIA的逻辑是没有问题的

meckychen

中文是什么意思啊？那么长的句子看不懂。
谢谢了。