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.
吸烟造成许多【健康问题(本质 health problems)❤】→政府决定限制香烟。但是从香烟中获得的利润占到财政收入的10%,所以政府没办法执行禁烟令。
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
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论