GWD逻辑

sadixni

Q38:

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? 问题不明白。望指教。谢谢。

 

1. Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
2. In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
3. The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
4. There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
5. 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.

   Answer: E

 

weihua89

题干说的是已经有了禁烟法规了，一些人又请愿要求这个州出台限制吸烟的规定。问哪一个情况会让人们误以为限制吸烟的州法是已经存在的法规的延伸。

a,b,c,d都没关系，e说新的州法不会影响现行的法规。换句话说，有了州法会让限制吸烟的面儿扩大，而不是与原有法规冲突或重复，这当然会让人觉得是现有法规的延伸。