Hi durant25,You got the answer, so let me just translate what Marty is pointing at, because it's a single clean idea hiding behind two words.
Marty is highlighting that the argument quietly
switches terms:
- The evidence talks about
"annual revenues" - money coming
in. Losing tobacco sales means losing
10% of that income.
- The conclusion talks about what Gandania can
"afford" - and "afford" is about the
net picture, money in
minus money out.
Those are not the same thing. You can lose some income and still be just as able to afford something -
if your costs drop at the same time.
And that's exactly the situation here. The very first sentence says smoking is driving
health care costs up. The proposed laws halt smoking, so they would push those health costs back
down. So the laws cost revenue but also save spending.
For "cannot
afford" to follow from "loses
10% of
revenue," the argument has to assume the cost savings won't make up for the lost revenue. That's precisely what
B locks down: the health-cost savings "will not soon decrease enough to offset the projected loss of revenue." Without that assumption, the savings could cover the gap and Gandania
could afford the laws.
A quick everyday version to make it click:"I can't afford to quit my weekend job - it's 10% of my income."Sounds fine, until you notice the weekend job is also what forces you to pay for childcare and gas. Quitting loses income, but it also kills those costs. So whether you can "afford" to quit depends on the
net - the same revenue-vs-cost gap Marty is flagging.
That's the whole move: revenue going down doesn't automatically mean you can no longer afford something, because costs can go down too.
Answer: Bdurant25
Marty, I got the answer right, but I cannot understand your explanation.