11.Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.

(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.

(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.（A）

(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

我有几个问题：

1.roger 反对gloria，他用law是为了针对gloria类比中的哪个漏洞？

2.roger：Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.他的因果关系，我弄不明白。怎么回pay twice呢？

3.我开始选的D。看到答案后才明白他是在考错误的类比关系。

但我觉得D也可以削弱roger的话，大家认为呢？

1. 个人认为，roger是想驳斥gloria的类比，认为其不可比。R说上学不像一个matter or of choice，是一个legal requirement，而饮水则属于一种matter or of choice。所以不可比.

2. 所谓pay twice，是因为学生家长要交私立学校的钱，同时还要交政府的钱，则是双分.

3. D并没有直接反驳R呀，R是批驳G的类比，那反驳就要从类比入手.