谁能告诉我这道逻辑JJ原题为啥选A呢？

百叶旭灵

18. Tobacco Sales

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 （健康部长）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（没办法支付这个提议法案）.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?


A. All health care in Gandania is government-funded.


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

这道题JJ里木有给答案~好像是GWD里面的~~我选A~因为BCDE明显更不靠谱~~答案是A 吗？如果是A~~A为什么对呢？~~~~~这道题目说削弱政府不能支付这个提议草案，跟这个健康中心是不是政府基金支持的有啥米关系？高手指点~~

xie8910

Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania’s annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws

会减少财政收入——政府无法负担这个新法律的后果

因此，选项A说，医保也是政府负责的，因为禁烟可以减少医保的付出，不禁烟的话医保会比较高，所以两个可以抵扣，在财政方面政府没有明显的亏

清飞扬

from 曼哈顿的800大牛 RON:

RON:
the conclusion of this argument is that the government cannot afford to fight smoking, because it would not be able to withstand the reduction or elimination of tobacco-related revenues.
the fact that the government revenues would decrease as a result of fighting smoking is just that -- a fact. therefore, that part of the argument can't be weakened.
plus, the only remaining way to weaken this argument would be to show that fighting smoking would also cause a reduction of other government expenses; this is what choice (a) does.

百叶旭灵

800…………汗死~~

百叶旭灵

非常感谢！