GWD 17 41 思维混乱 NN们救命呀

呼啸700

41.: GWD-23-Q39

In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania’s annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A.All health care in Gandania is government-funded.（答案）

B.Implementing the proposed laws is not likely to cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.

C.The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.

D.Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.

E.No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use.

sdcar2010

Answer (A) seems to be a ball out of left field. But if you read the stimulus with a critical eye, you would remember that only three things were mentioned: tobacco, health problem, and the government. The reason why the government hesitates to curtail tobacco sales is purely money-related since the tobacco industry provides revenue to the government.  One way to pursuade the government to change its policy is to show that tobacco also causes the government money. (A) fits the bill.

B will not hurt the argument. An increase, even if not significant, is still an increase.

呼啸700

我疑惑的地方在于：  文章的结论是：由于削减烟草业，政府就没有钱来实行这项法律
                                要削弱这个结论，那么就是 烟草业被削减后，政府也根本没有任何影响。？？？NN你按照文章的结论到底是什么 来再给我解释一下 好吗

呼啸700

我疑惑的地方在于：  文章的结论是：由于削减烟草业，政府就没有钱来实行这项法律
                               要削弱这个结论，那么就是 烟草业被削减后，政府也根本没有任何影响。？？？NN你按照文章的结论到底是什么 来再给我解释一下 好吗

ran2010zx

其实这个题目不难
楼主你看：原文的结论是加拿大负担不起proposed laws
A说所有的医疗保障都是加拿大政府掏钱的
如果置之不理的话政府每年也会用越来越多的钱来加大投入到医疗保障里面
所以都会减少钱。。。
clear？~

呼啸700

I  SEE   I sEe  我误解了 funded 的意思 government-funded 就是 医疗也需要政府的钱 而由于禁烟减少的政府收入 也是 减少政府的钱  所以 减哪个都是减少 削弱！！！！！最近跟你讨论错误率下降 但是 我还是 有时候犯糊涂 比较 灰心

sdcar2010

我疑惑的地方在于：  文章的结论是：由于削减烟草业，政府就没有钱来实行这项法律
                                要削弱这个结论，那么就是 烟草业被削减后，政府也根本没有任何影响。？？？NN你按照文章的结论到底是什么 来再给我解释一下 好吗

-- by 会员 呼啸700 (2011/3/29 21:00:37)

Afford, when used here, does not mean to have the financial means for, but to manage or bear without disadvantage or risk to oneself. Namely, the government cannot excecute the law without hurting the country.