gwd-13-5

bon

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?

1. 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.


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


3. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.


4. 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.

我选e,答案是d,大家看看

rt316

E，直接反对原因，正确；D无关

sunnyspring

什么叫“most undermines the defense of the government’s plan”？

如果原文讲The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. 又说government’s plan使该地区的收入增加比其他地方快，那E的选项说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是不是相当于否定both objection and government’s plan？

怎么理解这些关系呀？

arundhati

most undermines the defense of the government’s plan的意思是：最能削弱对政府计划的辩护。也就是削弱政府计划，支持对该计划的反对意见。

所以题目要削弱的也就是这一块：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.

那就要找出所收的税增长的百分比并不能说明revenue的高低。而E说revenue在两种地方的增长并没有差别，直接削弱这个defense。E并没有否定both objection啊，况且题目只有一个objection，怎么会有both呢？

fair_sword

agree E

zcy8888

同意D.    E中＂government revenues from sales taxes＂应是与正文＂meal taxes＂无关．

duanjt

同意D，分析如下：

E中sales taxes和题目无关。

D中说明禁烟后revenues的增长是由于maintain separate dining areas，不是由于禁烟引起的。因此如果完全实行了禁烟后（包括不允许maintain separate dining areas），revenues就会下降。

alexwang0122

Good points! But Does sales taxes include meal taxes?

ztlbox

agree D, in E, Over the last five years is irreasonable,

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.

other reason can lead to the above result, no directly connection with smoking

if you think D is not correct, please give a reason

闲云漫舞

同意E。
条件一：过去5年，禁烟区餐厅食品税上升34%，非禁烟区餐厅食品税上升26%；
条件二：食品税反映餐厅收入。
推出：禁区餐厅收入比非禁区收入上升快。
要求证明：政府禁烟计划是错的，即支持“政府禁烟不会减少餐厅收入”。

E项：政府并未多收禁区餐厅的税（这里的sale tax应该包括meal tax，相信餐厅不会都是free meal），而条件中已知禁区餐厅收入增加。进得多，上交的少，应该符合结论餐厅收入未减少。可以把E项看成去掉了一个削弱结论的因素，因此加强。

D项：“In many of the towns”很模糊，并未起到削弱作用。也许你会觉得“仍有一部分允许抽烟”有一定削弱作用，但反过来，另一部分还是不允许抽烟，可能餐厅收入还是在下降。

个人意见，欢迎讨论。