raising the cigarette tax

[natali2007]

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?

1) Questioning the support for Sonya’s conclusion by distinguishing carefully between

No change and no decrease

2) calling Sonya’s conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain

change

3) Arguing that Sonya’s conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a

prededent for what she predicts will happen

4) Showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain erect is not the

only cause that could produce that effect

5) pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the predicts it will have

[diya123]

I go with E. It states that the change is not all good as Sonya says but may cause some negative effects too..

[aim-high]

IMO B

Actually, its questioning somaya's conclusion that government revenue will increase. Raoul's pointed out that illegal ciggaretts smuggling might not increase the govt. revenue.

[powerthelogic]

Yes B is good to choose.

[angryMOFO]

I would go with B. It is questioning the conclusion, because other effects may happen.

[hungvuong]

agree with B