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.
要削弱的是针对于defense of the government's plan, 而denfense是因为税收不仅没有下降,反而上升了34%且税收和收入是正相关的,因此在饭店禁止吸烟并不会影响收入。而选项D打破了这层逻辑关系,并不是禁止吸烟导致的收入上升而是因为餐馆单独设置了可以吸烟的区域,所以并不是这个ban/plan在起作用。
restriction和ban是有区别的
【关键:plan是要ban禁止,一些城镇实施的是restrictions限制,gap:限制等于禁止】
前提:V的几个城镇在限制餐厅吸烟后仍然税收增加
结论:全国禁止在餐厅吸烟也不会影响税收收入
D,在那些限制吸烟的城镇的餐厅里是有吸烟区的,并没有完全禁止吸烟,不能代表禁止吸烟后的情况,攻击了gap,削弱了推论
E选项,meal tax和sales tax
这道题看起来信息很多,但其实就是果因论证。因为数据挺好就觉得禁烟对餐厅没有影响
逻辑缺陷:有可能餐厅收入持续增加是因为别的原因,如果没有禁烟,餐厅效益会更好
D:赚钱是因为有一部分还是可以吸烟的,他因使得收入增加
延伸:别的他因:最近这些village游客增多,在这些地方吃饭的人多(收入增加其实是因为游客增加,和禁烟没有关系) - 当然没有题目的正确选项好,因为正确选项举例他因的同时还直接把禁烟排除在外
【关键:plan是要ban禁止,一些城镇实施的是restrictions限制,gap:限制等于禁止】
前提:V的几个城镇在限制餐厅吸烟后仍然税收增加
结论:全国禁止在餐厅吸烟也不会影响税收收入
D,在那些限制吸烟的城镇的餐厅里是有吸烟区的,并没有完全禁止吸烟,不能代表禁止吸烟后的情况,攻击了gap,削弱了推论
为什么C不对呢,如果过去五年吸烟人下降,那么被迫只能去非无烟餐厅就餐的人就少了,更多的人可以选择无烟餐厅,所以无烟餐厅的收入增加,可以解释部分餐厅restrict smoking后收入不减反增的现象啊
search for the gap: nationwide vs. several town
方案削弱: 有他因 一樣導致預期結果
restrict用过去完成时会更好理解,但既然说了in many of the towns也只能指之前的试验城市了
restriction in the restaurant 不等同于禁烟
在那些限制吸烟的城镇的餐厅里是有吸烟区的,并没有完全禁止吸烟,不能代表禁止吸烟后的情况,攻击了gap,削弱了推论
这道题应该属于统计样本题,several towns 的数据到底能否代表nationwide town。
从restriction➡️ban是一个扩大范围,限制并不是禁止
E说的是税涨了,但政府收入没增加。政府收入增没增加与税增长显示禁烟餐馆收入增长没有关系,也削弱不了后者。
本题:没Ban仅仅有restriction的时候,tax collected上升,那么ban了以后并不会减少government的revenue.
问削弱,即啥玩意会造成ban了以后,government的revenue减少
ABC全部无瓜
D,因为restrict的情况下餐厅开设允许吸烟的新的dining areas才导致revenue上升;如果彻底ban了的话,revenue会下降
E,Rvenue还是上升了,错
E,把 no faster替换成更慢或相等,有限制的比没限制的的税增长得更慢,-->税影响收入;增长速度一样,-->不影响收入
D,在那些限制吸烟的小镇,餐馆保留了隔离开的吸烟区。-->相当于还是没限制,以前的用来支撑结论的base失效。
Vorland's government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. 这才是政府的计划
Nationalwide ban on smoking in restaurants和
Restaurant smoking restrictions 的程度不一样
也就是D选项虽然吃饭区不能吸烟,但是客人还是能在restaurant 的吸烟区吸烟,所以并不能支持ban 不reduce restaurants’ revenue
E收入增长速度与大小无关
P:在那些有禁烟令的餐厅征收到的税比起之前增加了34%,那些没有禁烟令的餐厅征收到的税比起之前增加了26%
C:禁烟令不会对餐厅的收入造成影响,因为税收反映了餐厅的收入水平