Read the following passage and choose the most likely answer to each of the following questions.
University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman had a favorite saying: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” His point was that when governments provide goods and services, someone has to provide the money, knowingly or not. But if he were around today and living in San Francisco, he might have to modify his words. There, it’s possible to make nearly every meal a free meal.
Big tech companies have figured out a way to keep employees happy—and keep them at the office working hard. The trick is in-house “dining halls” that offer an array of dining options for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack time. Best of all for their workers, the food is free. There are 51 of these cafeterias around San Francisco, with Twitter, Google and Square among the hosts.
But the future of free meals is in doubt. Two city supervisors are sponsoring a measure to forbid any more such establishments. Existing ones would be allowed to continue, but new companies that want in-house dining would actually have to charge employees for the food.
The critics argue that the dining halls put nearby restaurants at a huge disadvantage. “You can’t compete with free,” Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, told the San Francisco Chronicle. They are also claimed to dry up street life, prevent workers from interacting with their neighbors and deprive retail shops of walk-in customers. “We don’t want employees biking or driving into their office, staying there all day and going home,” Supervisor Ahsha Safai explained.
Plenty of cities would love to have such “problems” to deal with. Business Insider recently ranked San Francisco and nearby San Jose the two strongest local economies in the country. The tech boom has forced firms to compete for employees by offering varied benefits. These benefits make it easier for workers to bear the chief burden of living there—the high cost of housing, fueled by all the people drawn by the hot job market.
Every peach has its pit. But it’s hard to argue that new employers should be prevented from giving workers something of value—particularly when their established competitors are allowed to. And let’s not forget that the in-house dining halls provide employment for food service workers, distributors and farmers. Imposing a ban might help local restaurants and shops by getting more people out of the office. But it would also give tech firms a reason to locate elsewhere, depriving San Francisco of their expenditures and tax payments.
In time, employees may find the in-house dining arrangements claustrophobic（导致幽闭恐惧症的）.As one San Francisco tech veteran told us, “It’s one of those things that sounds great when you’re getting recruited, but the shine wears off pretty quickly.”
Smart tech companies might offer workers meal allowance or vouchers（抵用券）so they can eat out instead—and maybe reduce their risk of burnout from spending too much time at the office. Nearby restaurants could find ways to work with these employers instead of fighting them.
Butting in（干涉）to stop companies from giving things of value to their workers is a heavy-handed remedy for a doubtful problem. Surely the people governing San Francisco are not that starved for ideas.
What might be one of the consequences of the ban on free meals in high-tech companies?（ ）
A、
These companies may move away from the city.
B、
City life may be enriched by more restaurants and shops.
C、
Employers may benefit from the reduction of the companies’ cost.
D、
Local service businesses may suffer from loss of potential customers.
【正确答案】：A
【题目解析】：
本题考查禁止高科技公司提供免费餐食可能的结果。
根据题干回文定位到第六段最后两句话。分析语境，“实施禁令可能会让更多人离开办公室，从而帮助当地餐馆和商店。但这也给科技公司提供了一个在别处的理由，剥夺了旧金山的支出和税收。”由此可知，这些公司可能会从这个城市搬离更合适。故选A。
B选项more（更多）餐厅表达错误。