Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.
Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.
Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?
Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between no change and no decrease
Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change
Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen
Showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect
Pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the effect that Sonya predicts it will have
S: 政府对香烟征税以后,香烟售价依然相对低。不影响销量->从香烟上的税收增加。
R:但是加税以后香烟价格不再是这片地区最低的,有可能会出现走私香烟被出售。问R是如何反驳S
choice b, 通过指出一个可能的结果来challenge S的结论。correct,S忽视了可能会出现走私烟,因而正规渠道的香烟sales可能受影响
choice e, 指出一个行为不足以产生S预言会产生的结果。incorrect,给香烟加税收的确有可能产生税收全部增加的结果,R并没有challenge这个预期会产生的结果。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论