问一道逻辑题是关于禁烟的

Brandon16

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.

正确答案是D，答案是选对了，但是我有些不明白“The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. ”这句话在原文中起什么作用？应该怎么理解？

谢谢。

jinqijia

这句话不就是the defense of the government’s plan吗？支持政府的人说：反对这个ban的理由是ill founded的，也就是说，全国范围的禁烟不会影响饭店的收入。