feifei 第90题 比较纠结,恳请不惜赐教

acrophobia

90. Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and nonsmokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified. The fact that studies indicate that nonsmokers might be harmed by inhaling the smoke from others’ cigarettes is not the main issue. Rather, the main issue concerns the government’s violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rules.
Which of the following is a principle that, if accepted, could enable the conclusion to be properly drawn?
(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is justified only when individuals might be harmed.
(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of businesses to be free from government intrusion.
(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual.
(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace.
(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main issue is finding a successful compromise.

答案为C.
但想不明白A为什么错.
宝典解释为:A，反对原文论证

conclusion:政府介入是侵犯私企权利.(不好意思,翻译得比较烂,只是示意一下.)
A选项:政府介入只在有人受害时才说得过去
A中选项取反: 政府介入不是只在有人受害时才说得过去,一般情况也说得过去.
A:选项取反起到消弱
而且A似乎本身也起到加强结论的作用啊
C选项:私企权利高于政府权利.
C中选项取反: 私企权利并不高于政府权利-> 政府有权介入.
C 选项取反起到消弱

该题是不是属于加强题型,碰到这种题该怎么做呢, 用取反判断可行吗?
谢谢啦

victoria820

直接思考不行么？区分吸烟区和禁止吸烟区--main issue不是不吸烟的人可能被harm到-

--真正important的是政府无权干涉private businesses的right。
怎么得出政府无权这个结论？
A。政府只有在individual收到伤害是才能干涉。这里，individual的确收到了伤害，那么按

照A的逻辑，政府应该可以要求区分吸烟区和禁止吸烟区，不管private businesses的right

是否收到侵害。
C。private businesses自行设定policies and rules的权利高于政府保护individual的义务。

所以，政府无权规定private businesses划分吸烟区和禁烟区。

为什么一定要死板的按照所谓的”题型“来做题呢？

acrophobia

谢谢你.
我懂你的意思, 但疑问仍然存在.
A项纠结的地方在于他有一个前提条件-有人受害. 貌似政府干涉是在特定情况下,才有权干涉. 而原文已经指出这种情况不是main concern,所以似乎也起到了支持原文的作用.

victoria820

你仔细读一下题：的确有研究表明不吸烟的人在有人吸烟的情况下会被harm到，但是这个不是最主要的关注点。最主要的问题是政府可能干涉了private businesses的权利。
那句”rather，the main issue concern...“就是说，其实我们根本不care是不是有人受到伤害，我们关注的是政府的侵权行为。
不知道这样说，是不是会更清楚。

acrophobia

谢谢理解了.
有一问题不知合不合适问...
什么情况下使用"取反论证"才是合理的.