1 . Gov. Kathy Hochul's proposal to allow restaurants to sell drinks to go with reasonable limitations was met with great enthusiasm all across New York. But New York's liquor (酒) stores have already begun a campaign of misinformation in an effort to block this.

Their basic argument is that the governor's proposal will result in an increase in underage sales, drunken driving, or any other public health problems. However, they throw these statements around without offering any support for their claims — because there is none.

While the liquor stores frequently claim that the laws have been unchanged since the abolishment (废除) of Prohibition in 1934, in just the past 20 years the rules governing liquor stores have been changed, permitting the use of online third-party delivery services and allowing stores to open on Sundays. Restaurant advocates didn't oppose these expanded privileges because they didn't have a significant impact on restaurant sales.

What hasn't changed of the law since Prohibition is the restriction on new liquor store licenses that give liquor stores a geographic territorial monopoly (垄断) to protect them from competition. Under typical circumstances, the State Liquor Authority will only issue a new liquor store license if the nearby stores report steadily increasing sales. However anti-competitive and outdated this restriction may be, it does serve as a protection against their concerns — in the very unlikely event they come to pass.

Economically, the pandemic has been a major help to the liquor store business. Before the pandemic, liquor stores sold 76% of all liquor in New York State and now they sell nearly 85%. And remember, during this period, restaurants were allowed drinks-to-go sales, showing their false claims of economic collapse are not grounded in reality or experience. The sales shift from restaurants to liquor stores over the past two years demonstrates clearly that restaurants have lost sales to liquor stores — we just want to stop the bleeding. While the restaurant industry rebounded for a part of 2021, employment still remains more than 20% below pre-pandemic levels.

1. Why did liquor stores oppose the proposal according to the author?

A．Threat to public health.	B．Boost of underage sales.
C．Concerns about their sales.	D．Limitations to drinks to go.

2. What can be inferred from the fourth paragraph?

A．Liquor stores are in a dog-eat-dog world.

B．Prohibition makes liquor stores dead in the water.

C．The number of liquor stores is under control.

D．What liquor stores worry about is reasonable.

3. What does the underlined word “their” in the last paragraph refer to?

A．Restaurants.	B．Governors.
C．New Yorkers.	D．Liquor stores.

4. What is the best title for the text?

A．Let restaurants sell drinks to go.

B．Defend liquor stores privileges.

C．Liquor industry is losing money.

D．Restaurants are racing with liquor stores.