GWD-13-5 不同意标准答案

wonglum

以下是引用kenshin在2004-11-27 14:12:00的发言：

Please pay attention to difference between "ban" and "restriction". Choice D points out this difference so that undermines the flawed defense.

I understand now, thank you!

numberunique

I agree with tqbiao

brucejohnson

以下是引用leeon在2004-11-9 16:05:00的发言：
        

更正一下前面的理解：

undermines the defense of the government’s plan? 破坏政府计划的辩护。

政府计划是餐厅禁烟，辩护说餐厅禁烟不会减少餐厅营收，然后举例说明了禁烟的餐厅比不禁烟的餐厅营收高。说明了禁烟不会减少营收。

D说不是因为禁烟造成的餐厅营收差别。因为在那些禁烟的餐厅还是有地方可以抽烟的。所以是答案。

A说餐厅征税会使营收降低，这个对原文的推理没有影响，因为所有的餐厅对会征税，所以对所有的餐厅影响是一样的。所以A是无关选项。最后一句只是为了证明征税的多少反映了餐厅的营收。

我强烈同意上述看法。我的理解是：政府要在V地实施禁烟。文章作者为政府计划作辩护，指出政府计划不会减少餐厅税收。文章作者还举出几个实施限制吸烟措施的餐厅meal tax上升，营业收入也上升的例子。题目问哪个选项削弱文章作者对政府计划的辩护，D是正确的。因为政府计划的禁烟（ban）和文章作者举例使用的限制吸烟（restriction）是不同的。限制吸烟确实不会减少餐厅收入，因为餐厅可以划出吸烟区。如果全面禁烟，应该就禁止划出吸烟区了，所以餐厅收入可能就会减少。文章作者在辩护政府计划时没有看到这个区别，举例不当。D选项正好指出这个区别，削弱文章作者的辩护，指出禁烟可能会减少餐厅收入。

A和E都不对。A只提到meal tax与revenues的关系，没有提到禁烟；E比较的sales tax原文中根本没有提到。因此两项均无关。这道题虽然做对了，但看了讨论贴后才想这么细。供大家参考。

mejor

服了！

wanghaiping0

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.
               
5. 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:

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=78057给出了好多讨论 集中在A和D上

大家看看E选项 把文中的meal tax偷换成了sale tax

事实上，sale tax=meal tax+ other tax(eg. performance tax), 禁烟餐厅的总营业额并不比非禁烟餐厅的高，政府所说的仅仅是某项营业额高，企图以偏概全

因此答案是E

大家的看法如何？

wanghaiping0

以下是引用kenshin在2004-11-27 14:12:00的发言：

Please pay attention to difference between "ban" and "restriction". Choice D points out this difference so that undermines the flawed defense.

一语破的 经典！

solleks

这题错的心服口服，

tonyyuan

floor 14 is good, I am here for confirmation! it confirmed!!!

chamcham

the whole arg talking about smoke ban, A's meal tax is totall irrelevant. D is better

gonghao

文章通过指出，实行禁烟的地方的税收高来证明，禁烟本身并不会减少餐厅收入，因为最后一句话：税收高证明收入高。

D：指出其实禁烟本非是实打实的，所以文章说了半天的东西，只能证明，部分禁烟不会导致餐厅收入减少。

这题一定要好好体会其中的差别