请nn指点一道GWD逻辑，谢谢

satancn

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.

答案是D，没看懂。。。

satancn

顶一下。。。

RBY

D说的是在那些限制吸烟的餐馆里，有分开的就餐区是允许吸烟的。

这就说明，这些餐馆的收入的增长是因为分了无烟区，和吸烟区。

而政府限制在餐馆吸烟也想达到一样的收入增长的效果就是不可能的了。

所以就weaken了结论...

个人看法...