国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: 请教一道OG黑体字（boldface）题 [打印本页]

作者: 891758149 时间: 2013-5-31 06:53 标题: 请教一道OG黑体字（boldface）题

205. Consumer advocate:

it is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise.

It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence.

However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs.

Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.

In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions inboldfaceplay which of the followingroles?

(A) The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.

(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.

(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.

(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction. C

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.

附上OG解释：In the passage, the conclusion advocate argues for a certain position:

….eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific

services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ legal costs.

What follows the statement is preceded by two concessions that, the advocate admits, tend to point in the opposite direction; what follows the statement of the position are the reasons the advocate has for holding that position. To answer the question, you must find the choice that correctly describes the roles played by both of the portions that are in boldface.

Choice C is the correct answer. The first boldface portion does present a pattern of cause and effect, and the advocate’s prediction is that his time the pattern will be different. In addition, the second boldface portion is one of the considerations that the advocate uses in support of that prediction.

While the description of the first boldface portion given in choice A is correct, that of the second is not: the generalization in fact tends to run counter to the prediction made in the second boldface

portion. Therefore this choice is incorrect.

Choice B is incorrect, since although the first boldface portion presents a pattern of cause and effect, the advocate’s prediction is that in this case that pattern will not hold. Thus the role of the first boldface portion is incorrectly described. Choice D is incorrect: the advocate odes not use the first boldface portion in support of any prediction and instead concedes that it runs counter to the advocate’s own prediction.

While the role of the first boldface portion is correctly described in choice E, that of the second is not, since the position the advocate is defending is not the second boldface portion, but rather the position identified above. Thus this choice is incorrect.

解释看得我一头雾水。请教各位高手，如何判断？我选了B。如果能用中文理顺思路，那就更好了。谢谢！

作者: saffsa761 时间: 2013-5-31 19:25

第一个黑体出现在转折词however之前，一定和作者Consumer advocate观点相反的，所以B错

作者: sayyessi 时间: 2013-6-1 07:19

这题很有迷惑性啊，我一开始也选了B
后来仔细看了看C，才发现上当了。
没有看下面OG的解释，我的理解如下
(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.

首先要记住整篇argument都是consumer advocate说的。consumer advocate最后提出的predicts是取消在广告中明确收费条款的限制会导致乱收费，消费者得不到实惠blahblah。因此第一段BF陈述的是一般性的因果推理，而consumer advocate并不认为这种情况会在今后发生。第二段就是所谓的consideration，也可以理解成consumer advocate的理由之一啦。

作者: YuukiChan 时间: 2013-6-3 06:15

所以实际上consumer advocate的立场是However之后的部分(第二个BF)；之前的部分(第一个BF)虽然正确，但是advocate不认为会发生？

作者: konglxd 时间: 2013-6-4 20:11

it is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.

concession, however, conclusion, premise.
正在看SCDAR的东西，看到这个试试，还真是这个逻辑链。

作者: minigreen 时间: 2013-6-5 05:55

it is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge l ...
konglxd 发表于 2013-6-4 20:11

SCDA是什么？

欢迎光临国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)