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.
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
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
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
从restriction➡️ban是一个扩大范围,限制并不是禁止
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
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。
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
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