In the past, every ten-percentage-point increase in cigarette prices in the country of Coponia has decreased per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent. Coponia is about to raise taxes on cigarettes by 9 cents per pack. The average price of cigarettes in Coponia is and has been for more than a year 90 cents per pack. So the tax hike stands an excellent chance of reducing per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Tobacco companies are unlikely to reduce their profit per pack of cigarettes to avoid an increase in the cost per pack to consumers in Coponia.
Previous increases in cigarette prices in Coponia have generally been due to increases in taxes on cigarettes.
Any decrease in per capita sales of cigarettes in Coponia will result mainly from an increase in the number of people who quit smoking entirely.
At present, the price of a pack of cigarettes in Coponia includes taxes that amount to less than ten percent of the total selling price.
The number of people in Coponia who smoke cigarettes has remained relatively constant for the past several years.
找出了tax和sale price之间的gap ,明明想的也是A,但是还是错选了B
选了B,B是有关的,但是过来再看发现犯了一个归纳法和充分必要条件的错误。
按照罗素的归纳方式来看,如果太阳在每一天都是升起的,那么我们是不是能够预测下一天的太阳也是会升起的?按照经验主义来看是这样,但是从逻辑上来看却不是,因为以前的经验不能够保证以后的事情发生的概率。
B选项就是这样,以前的烟草价格上升往往是(generally)来自于税收的增长,但是问题在于,首先归纳法能够归纳出下一次价格增长吗?很显然是不行的。其次,价格上升因为税收增长,但是税收增长并不会一定导致价格上升。这里并不是一个充分条件。
我也选了B,一直很纠结,你这解释听懂了,谢谢
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
A选项有点绕,首先cost per pack to consumers其实就是company's sales price,所以表示公司不会为了牺牲利润而不涨价(公司一定会涨价)
既然公司涨价了,那收到的香烟税就会变多
条件一: 价格上涨10%,那么销售下降4%
条件二:香烟的税上涨9分,香烟的售价是90分,推出香烟上涨10%,得出结论:销售下降4%
假设:税上涨会直接transfer到价格的上涨,需要利润空间保持稳定才行
为什么不选E
前提:过去,price上升,sales下降
结论:近期,tax上升,sales下降。
反驳:tax上升,不代表price上升,
B为什么不对?之前销价都因为税涨价了那这次税涨价了销价肯定也涨
是否有其他可能导致sales不会减少那么多---薄利多销
根据是烟的价格上涨百分之十,per capital sales of cigarettes下降百分之四. 推出的结论是,政府多收百分之十的税,会导致per capital sales of cigarette下降百分之四. assumption是政府多收百分之十的税会导致烟的价格上涨百分之十,其他影响烟的价格的因素不会对烟的价格造成影响.
前提是价格上涨10%,那么销售下降4%。
现在政府要把售价为90cents的烟多收9cents的税(也就是政府要涨10%的税),结论就说你涨10%那么销量就会下降4%
所以这个reasoning暗含的assumption就是:卖烟的公司会把政府涨得税加到价格里去,价格提高了那么销量就下降了。
搭桥 价格涨 销售下降 税涨 销售下降 搭桥 价格和税有关? 削弱 无关
因果推理
P:raise taxes on cigarettes by 9 cents per pack & the average price of cigarettes is 90 cents per pack
C:the tax hike stands an excellent chance of reducing per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent
评估方向(取反):反驳推理文段中的结论
错误原因:fail to identify the correct argument
changing word.. 给出的信息的rise in price, 给予的plan是rise in tax, so it assumes that the rise in tax will correspondingly transform to the price
仔细审题呀
E项取反之后不能支持
tax上升,销量下降,因为消费者要花更多的钱,但如果烟草公司豁的出去,不要利润了,降价让利给消费者,销量肯定不会少
想确保销量下降,就必须确保烟草公司 are unlikely to reduce their profit
前提:过去,price上升,sales下降
结论:近期,tax上升,sales下降。
反驳:tax上升,不代表price上升,
条件一: 价格上涨10%,那么销售下降4%
条件二:香烟的税上涨9分,香烟的售价是90分,推出香烟上涨10%,得出结论:销售下降4%
假设:税上涨会直接transfer到价格的上涨,需要利润空间保持稳定才行
这题有难题啊,逻辑弯绕不过来啊!这题即使看到选项A正确,我也好难架桥啊!
这题好吓人,看题目当做数学题做了,看了选项才明白。