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
没有看出两个陈述之间的差别啊!!
⚠️illegal sales of smuggled是走私非法销售的意思
上面的人说:烟价不高所以销量不会有很大改变,但是税收高,所以政府会增加收入
虾面的人说:确实价格不高,但是这不是最低的,存在非法走私
注意!!!这道题的关键点在收入被政府拿了还是走私掉了!!所以下面的在削弱上面的
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论