问两道逻辑题，大家帮忙想想。。。

xboytime

1. which of the following most logically completes the argument?

  A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is effective treatment for a certain disease. The drug now most commonly precribed for disease occasionally has serious side effects such as seizures; in field tests, the new drug's side effects, though no worse than mild nausea, turned out to be much more frequent. Nevertheless, the new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment, since___

(E) there is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea

请问这个选项为什么是对的。。。

2. Vorland's government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurant's revenues is ill founded. several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restriction 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 oercent eslewhere 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?

(D) In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain seperate 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 restriction than in the towns that have no such restriction.

请问怎么思考这道题．．．谢谢

   

顿顿的微笑

第一道说有一种新药具有某种副作用，但是仍然可以使用。原因是由另一种药当和新药一起使用的时候可以抵消副作用。

第二道说的是禁烟可能影响饭店收入。这一观点有问题，因为政府从禁烟的饭店上收到了更多的税收。我认为答案是d,因为如果饭店可以另外开辟一允许吸烟的地方营业，那么营业额增加从而税收增加。解释了题目中的现象，但是也削弱了文中结论，因为禁烟可能对饭店收入的确有影响。