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:
这题答案是D。但是,我认为答案是A,理由如下:
题目中的conclusion是The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded.削弱应该为the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues。而A就是说到revenue will decline in short term,达到削弱得条件。(FF说过只要有一点点削弱了,就是削弱了)
而D,我认为选D是受常识的影响。D是说了那个ban的内容细节。原文并没有提到ban的细节是如何,也没有说national wide ban和已经在几个state实行的ban是不同的,所以D是无关,应该排除。
从这个题目里面,我们可能可以看到:不能被太多常识左右我们的选择
望各位多发表意见指导我一下。
[此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-9 12:13:30编辑过] |