Question

read the passage. in the late twentieth century, singapore faced a significant problem with chewing gum litter. gum stuck on sidewalks, seats, and public facilities was messy and required expensive maintenance. the problem intensified when vandals used gum to jam train doors, causing delays and costly repairs. to combat this, the singaporean government implemented a ban on chewing gum in 1992. the ban made it illegal to import, sell, or chew gum in public, aiming to eliminate the root cause of the litter problem. this solution, while harsh, proved effective, as gum - related litter and associated maintenance costs dropped. in 2004, the ban was slightly relaxed, allowing people to chew gum for dental or medical purposes, provided that they dispose of it properly. although the ban successfully tackled gum - related litter and maintenance issues, critics argue that it came at the cost of limiting individual rights. what is the central idea of the passage? singapores gum ban has served as a model for other cities to follow. singapores gum ban has provided economic benefits through increased tourism. singapores gum ban led to other personal rights restrictions. singapores gum ban is a strict law that keeps the city clean.

Explanation:

The passage focuses on Singapore's 1992 gum ban implemented to address litter and maintenance issues, noting its effectiveness in reducing gum-related problems despite criticism about individual rights limits. The central idea is that the ban is a strict law maintaining cleanliness.

Answer:

Singapore's gum ban is a strict law that keeps the city clean.