ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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?

正确答案: D

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 5365|回复: 10
打印 上一主题 下一主题

gwd-13-5

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-6-25 13:23:00 | 只看该作者

gwd-13-5

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?




  • 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 restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

  •    Answer:


    沙发
    发表于 2004-6-25 18:40:00 | 只看该作者
    i chose D. correct ?
    板凳
    发表于 2004-6-25 19:28:00 | 只看该作者

       我选D

       原文推理:禁止在饭店吸烟——》预期饭店收入会减少——》事实上饭店餐税增加(收入增加)——》禁止在饭店吸烟不会降低饭店收入

       D说:在大多数的地方的饭店可以维持吸烟,因此饭店收入增加和禁止吸烟不能形成有效的因果关系(削弱)

    地板
    发表于 2004-6-25 21:23:00 | 只看该作者
    I think D is correct.
    5#
    发表于 2004-6-26 01:10:00 | 只看该作者
    Agree on D.
    6#
    发表于 2004-7-19 07:18:00 | 只看该作者
    请NN来看看,我觉得E更好
    7#
    发表于 2004-7-19 07:20:00 | 只看该作者
    以下是引用kingsoft在2004-6-25 19:28:00的发言:

       我选D


       原文推理:禁止在饭店吸烟——》预期饭店收入会减少——》事实上饭店餐税增加(收入增加)——》禁止在饭店吸烟不会降低饭店收入


       D说:在大多数的地方的饭店可以维持吸烟,因此饭店收入增加和禁止吸烟不能形成有效的因果关系(削弱)



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


    D和楼上翻译得意思有差异


    8#
    发表于 2004-10-1 23:38:00 | 只看该作者
    D. The argument is citing the facts to support banning smoking while D points out that smoking restriction might just simply separate non-smoking and smoking areas instead of banning smoking. The link between the fact and the argument is weakened, if not broken.
    9#
    发表于 2004-10-19 23:37:00 | 只看该作者
      kingsoft 的解释方式多次多题看到,思路清晰,直击要害,力顶一下!!
    10#
    发表于 2004-10-28 16:49:00 | 只看该作者

    e中sales taxes和题目中meal taxes不同,哀哀,不过当时还是选的e。。

    您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

    Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

    手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-14 10:03
    京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

    ChaseDream 论坛

    © 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

    返回顶部