In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania's annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
All health care in Gandania is government-funded.
Implementing the proposed laws is not to cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.
The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.
Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.
No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use.
问weaken削弱:
A,所有【健康方面All health care ❤】in Gandania也是政府投资的 government-funded。(√),说明政府财政从香烟中减少的收入可以从医疗费用节省下来。因此可以afford to curtail the tabacoo
(√) 他因削弱:健康问题上升↑,花费也增大,政府需要承受这部分expense↑,这部分expence↑会抵消 烟草的利润profit↑,建立法律可以减少这部分支出expense↓。
B 建立此法律不会导致出口大量上升;法律不会带来出口收益,无关,排
C Gandania从烟草来的收入占比近些年保持稳定。 增强,方向反,排
D 烟草来的收入远超Gandania政府其他单一收入来源;增强,方向反,排
E 以前没有Gandania政府官员提出削减烟草的法律;跳出范围,无关,排
看着这个答案:这也行啊阿sir?
果:政府不能负担该法律
A health care都是由政府资助的—减少烟草可以减少health care 的医疗费—减少收入同时减少开支-balance政府可以负担
B W:该法律不会导致重大增加在烟草出口上 取反S: 烟草出口会增加--不影响税收 政府可以负担 是削弱不是增强 incorrect 注意是not to cause
choice a,所有的医疗都是政府资助的。correct,说明政府财政从香烟中减少的收入可以从医疗费用节省下来。因此可以afford to curtail the tabacoo
它因削弱吧。 不是果因才有它因削弱吗。。。纠结
他因吧,他因导致结果不成立。。或者说有因无果
需要脑补一下A登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
前提:tobacco account for ten percent of Gandania's annual revenues
结论:Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.
afford划重点,重点在于解释为什么担负不起
laws→↓revenue
赞!
G地政府卖烟,烟导致健康问题。立法会减少烟的收入
因此,无法负担得起立法。
削弱
猜:立法后还是能负担的起,尽管收入减少,支出也减少了。A项减少支出。
之前选的C,sales持平是过去的事情。没注意时态,将来立法后sales percent会减少。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论