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:
Premise: C地政府准备提高香烟税收,但是该地香烟价格会依然较低。
Premise: 香烟的消耗量不会怎么受影响。
Conclusion: 政府从香烟方面的税收也不会增加。
R:
Premise: 香烟的消耗的确不会减少。
Premise: 可是政府的香烟却不再是最低价,
Conclusion: 所以我们会看到C地出现很多非法运输香烟。
R回应S的方法?(找出P和C )
常识:走私不交税,所以【R认为政府的税收不会增加】,正好与S的结论相反。
B. Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change
通过指出某种变化可能产生的影响,对S的结论提出质疑。(√)质疑Conclusion
A. 通过仔细区分 "没有变化 "和 "没有减少 "来质疑对S结论的支持。(×)不是质疑support,即不是质疑Premise
C. 如果S能举出她所预测会发生的事情的【先例precedent 】,就能更好地支持索尼娅的结论》(×)无关。R并没有质疑S的结论是没有先例的。
D. 表明S声称将产生某种效果的原因cause 并不是【唯一the only】可能产生这种效果的原因。(×)无关。R并没有质疑这个唯一性。
E. 指出某项举措【不够大胆not bold enough】,无法产生S预测的效果。(×)无关。R并没有指出举措不够大胆。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论