In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?" The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government that are open to the public.
Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?
Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
The state law would not affect existing local ordinances banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard.
mislead可以理解為他們簽了petition,但是他們的想法是:這個petition是推廣自己本土的ordinance;然而實際的結果和他們的想法不符合。
這意味著:本土的ordinance和新的law肯定是不一樣的。否則,要是兩者是一樣的,就不會mislead他們了。如果和他們所想一樣,那麼在題目所處地方,實施新法以後,他們應該感覺不到變化,那麼就不是mislead。反正,有變化,就是mislead。
看答案:A。out of scope B。irrelevant distinction and no tie to conclusion。C符合。D。irr E。no inf, no change, no mislead.
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论