再请教一题

憧憬

Vorland’s government is plannig 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 increase 34%, on average, but only 26% elsewhere in vorland . the amount collected in restauranat meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Undermines the defense of the government’s plan

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

The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.

Over the last five years , smoking has steadily declined throughout vorland

In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted

Over the last five years , government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with reataurant smoking  restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

tianwan

D？

tianwan

so, it is D. 谢谢你提供这些新题。感觉这一题比你提供的上一题简单，我花了2m17s。还是偏长了。

题干：政府要ban，以前曾有restriction。 反对ban的理由：ban reduce revenue。defence ban的理由：曾经的restriction没有reduce revenue。

D，restriction之后，还有人能在餐厅smoke。-〉restriction（限制，不是完全禁止）不是Ban（完全禁止）。所以defense ban的理由不成立。

如果要（defence）支持ban，理由只能是ban不会带来恶果，那么说restriction不能带来恶果就没有意义，答非所问。

比如：你说A不好，我（defence）说B没问题，所以A不是不好。 那么说A和B没关系的选项，就说明我的理由是无关的，没有用的（undermine the defence)。

请指正。

憧憬

谢谢tianwan！发现自己阅读能力真的有问题，压根就没注意restriction 和ban是两个不同的东西，也没看见一个是将要实行的，一个是以前实行的，晕！