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.
这个题我以前一直困惑很久,过了这么长时间重看。发现有点意思:
文章:有一个请愿,就像民众问了一个问题”你愿意参与设立一个州级的禁烟令“吗?这个禁烟令涉及了XXX
问题:什么背景下,使得这个请愿实际上是对民众会认为这个请愿是对地方禁烟令的延申(也就是比本地的还要严格)的误导。
C:实际上最后成型的州级禁烟令会取代本地禁烟令,而地方禁烟令实际上要比州级的更严格。
这就直接点名事与愿违了。所以明显是误导人民群众。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论