[問題]OG 115

[best555tw]

115. Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?
(A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teen-agers.
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking.
(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.

答案A
請問
大家覺得B錯誤的點在哪裡?

[freshmanduke]

answer B雖然看是合理
但文中只講 雖在norway有禁止香菸廣告的禁令 但青少年吸菸率普遍 合沒有禁止香菸廣告
的國家一樣高
有此推論只能知道 青少年吸菸率是一樣高 而無法推出 Advertising does not play a role incausing teen-agers to start or continue smoking
有可能是禁令效果不佳 也有可能完全無效 或如a 所言 有其他因素影響

[dibert8]

(B) 太武斷

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

C不對是因為範圍太廣了嗎?

[nemolee]

C選項與B選項的道理是一樣的

禁煙廣告都打出來了，結果十幾歲吸煙的少年 與 某些不打禁煙廣告的國家的吸煙少年 是一樣的多

however, .......... ,smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

那代表一件事，禁煙廣告打跟沒打 是沒有什麼作用的，會是什麼原因造成 tobocco 的消耗量沒減少或是少年繼續的吸煙，一定是有其它的原因的，所以選(A)

參考看看

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

謝謝,我懂了