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.
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
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论