To answer the question, we must understand what the question is asking.
We can infer that some voters
like their local antismoking ordinances. These voters agree with a petition that advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.
How can this petition be misleading to such voters? The circumstance here is clear; the only way for the petition to be misleading is if the statewide ordinance is
not exactly the same as the ordinance in local towns. With this in mind, let’s go through the options:
A – Health costs are out of scope. We want an answer choice that explains why the petition as circulated is misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide.
B – This doesn’t explain why the petition is misleading. Even if there are relatively few retail establishments open to the public, these establishments exist and the state ordinance will apply.
C – Bingo – the statewide ordinance is
not exactly the same as the ordinance in local towns.
D – This choice doesn’t explain why the petition as circulated is misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide. It’s great a lot of voters are supportive, but we want an explain as to why a group finds it misleading.
E – So the state law would not affect places that already ban smoking. This is irrelevant.
Answer is C.
_________________
Help me get better -- please critique my responses!