|
 
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 2130
- 经验
- 2130 点
- 威望
- 212 点
- 金钱
- 212 ￥
- 魅力
- 212
|
feifei 第90题 比较纠结,恳请不惜赐教
[tr][td=593]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 |
|
