求助 大全上的难题

lisiberry

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.

OA A

有点看不明白题，去私立学校的话本来是需要交2次税？？
如有高手，请指点一下。谢谢。

lisiberry

顶

RRZZR

所有public的东西是tax payers的tax支付的，比如public school的学费(去public school 的孩子是不用交学费的) 和他们说的公共自来水。那Roger的意思就是 我孩子既然已经去了private school给他们交了学费，为什么还要给交tax支付public school。注意题里roger说的是pay it twice，是他孩子交的private school的学费，再加上他交的tax(这些tax的一部分被政府支付public school的别人家孩子学费去了），没说去private school的家长被double taxed

lisiberry

RRZZR 发表于 2017-2-27 07:25
所有public的东西是tax payers的tax支付的，比如public school的学费(去public school 的孩子是不用交学费 ...

明白鸟，选A妥妥滴。thanks。