The EU’s argument is similar to advising a man with a gangrenous leg that paying $50,000 for an aspirin is a good deal because the cost compares favorably to the cost of inaction, which is losing the leg. Of course, the aspirin doesn’t prevent that outcome.
欧盟的论点就像是向一个腿坏疽的人推销一种五万美元的阿斯匹林，并且说与无所作为、断腿相比较这还是很值得。当然，这一阿斯匹林并不防止这一后果。无所作为的论点一叶障目，因为这让我们建议使用阿斯匹林并且忽视那些灵巧有效、可以确实保住腿的行动。