[求助]gwd13-5

Drakedragon

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?

A  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.
B  The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
C Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
D In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
E 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

答案D，我选了A，我的想法就是，尽管是short term，但restrction确实会影响revenue，请高手赐教。特别是请指出我选A的想法错在哪

snooopy

government　的计划是禁烟，而Ａ说的是很久很久以前，government收了meal tax，然后有很多故事发生了。。。。。。。。　那么现在禁烟和revenue又有什么关系呢，他们能不能像以前government收meal tax 一样使revenue短期下降呢？答案只能靠我们继续ＹＹ了。。。

Drakedragon

谢谢，仁兄，顶自己一下，还是不太明白，顶自己一下

Lily0515

楼主你没有读懂题目

题目表示这V政府打算要”ban” on smoking in restaurants.

但有人质疑

之后政府又说:我之前在少数几个镇有执行restaurant smoking “restrictions” five years ago.

             并且在TAX都有收到钱这表示我现在要做的计划会成功

找WEAKEN

D就WEAKEN论证表示之前做的都有将抽烟或非抽烟做区分…意谓你现在若完全BAN的话会削弱restaurant revenue
                

这里要注意”ban”与“restrictions”的区别就容易解题了..

请指正

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-1-13 5:40:29编辑过]

summeryip

我觉得这题的关键是要明白“meal tax” 和 “smoking restrictions” 的关系。
政府收到的“meal tax”高，表示那些restaurants的生意好收入高，这是题目中政府的defender的论据，用来支持他们自己的论点：“The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded.”——禁烟不会影响restaurants的收入，即反对政府禁烟的观点是不对的。
答案是要求找出削弱“政府拥护者的观点”的选项，即驳论。我们可以驳他们的论据——禁烟试点的那些restaurants大都留有可以抽烟的吃饭场所，那他们收入的高或低并不能完全说明禁烟的真正影响——那么这一论据就是不充分的，从而也不能支持论点。

而选项A说的是政府刚开征meal tax时的一些社会舆论和事实情况，这是在说另外的一件事，和禁烟无关。


这是我的一点理解，希望对LZ有点帮助。

Drakedragon

谢谢各位指教

NOTALOSER

这道题government用了别的town的成功例子来作为他们实施计划的依据，那么weaken就一定要集中在这个依据的可行性或真实性上。选项D就是在讲这个依据是有特殊性的，别的town在实施ban的时候也有特殊的安排(separate)。

拉比rara

  控制吸烟的饭店，还是有隔离的吸烟区，说明过去5年收的税，不是建立在饭店完全禁烟的基础上，削弱了政府的举例