A provincial government plans to raise the gasoline tax to give people an incentive to drive less,reducing traffic congestion in the long term. However, skeptics point out that most people in the province live in areas where cars are the only viable transportation to jobs and stores and therefore cannot greatly change their driving habits in response to higher gasoline prices.

In light of the skeptics' objection, which of the following, if true, would most logically support the prediction that the government's plan will achieve its goal of reducing traffic congestion?


The revenue from the tax will be used to make public transportation a viable means of transportation to jobs and stores for far more people.

The tax will encourage many residents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reducing air pollution and other problems.

Because gasoline has been underpriced for decades, the province has many neighborhoods where cars are the only viable means of transportation.

Most residents who cannot greatly change their driving habits could compensate for high gasoline prices by reducing other expenses.

Traffic congestion is an especially serious problem for people for whom cars are the only viable means of transportation.

加入错题本 分享
纠错
考题讲解

情景：某地政府打算提高汽油税来让人们减少开车，借此达到减少交通拥堵的目的（政府的惯用伎俩）。但是呢，汽车实际上是这里居住的人们的必须品。

推理：由于本题的问题直接问了方案能否达成目标，所以肯定是方案推理。推理结构为：
目标：to drive less and to reduce traffic congestionin the long term
方案：raise the gasoline tax

选题方式：方案推理有三个评估方向，简而言之，即，答案选项一定和方案的内容相关。

选项分析：

A选项：Correct. 从汽油税中得到的收入将会被用来创造服务于更多人的能连接工作和商场的公共交通工具。本选项给方案的可行性增加了筹码，即，征收汽油税后，汽车将不再是唯一的一个交通工具，公众们可以乘坐公共交通工具，由此可以达到减少开车的效果。属于CQ1：方案的可行性问题。

B选项：汽油税可以鼓励很多居民改换更加节能的汽车，减少空气污染等其它问题。本选项讲的是汽车节能问题，没有提及方案的三个评估方向。（方案的否定性副作用的取非结果应该是，没有xxx的副作用，而不是有xxx的好处）

C选项：由于汽油的价格一直不高，所以这个地方的很多邻居县城也只有开车这么一种交通方式。本选项没有提及方案。

D选项：很多不能改变开车习惯的人可以通过减少其它花费的方式来弥补高汽油价格。本选项可以削弱推理文段，即，若人们可以找到方式来弥补油价升高，则该方案无法达成目标。

E选项：交通拥堵对于那些以开车为唯一交通方式的居民来说是一个严重的问题。本选项只谈到了目标的情况，没有提及方案。

展开显示

登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2016-CR
考点