OG11-61提问

ninihao

61  The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?

(A)          The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services.

(B)          The state is unlikely to remove all the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services.

(C)          Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise.

(D)          Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required

   E            Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise

答案我知道的,但是我不确定这个答案是属于哪种削弱,, 是属于直接削弱结论的,B 不成立的那种吗?

(A)          The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services.

(B)          The state is unlikely to remove all the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services.

(C)          Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise.

(D)          Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required

   E            Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise

答案我知道的,但是我不确定这个答案是属于哪种削弱,, 是属于直接削弱结论的,B 不成立的那种吗?

SunnyApples

我认为
B 是否定前提的
当时FF确实说否定前提不可取 但是B的否定前提和我们所用的一般的对前提的削弱不一样
B是硬生生的加了一个NOT 去否定
而正确的削弱前提的办法(据我观察)其实是承认了这个前提的存在 但是给出了另外一种对前提的解释``有一种峰回路转的感觉
这种现象在OG11的39 42 均可以看出
比如 因为我们用的商标是金色的 ------>  大家可以分辨出来谁是我们的产品
  而削弱前提是 我承认你们的商标是金色 但是我们消费者不会注意到
而weaken 了结论```  也就是``不是直接否定我们的商标不是金色 这么直接和无技术含量
我觉得是这种感觉```
不知道对不对  还请大家指正``因为我也在前提的削弱上有疑问``最后觉得应该这样比较合理```

linlin3151

我觉得不能消弱前提的说法本身在逻辑上就说不通！就像你说的例子，B绝对削弱了A的，因为A的前提都不成立了。（那个什么说法真的是费费说的？）其实，攻击前提是最常用的逻辑攻击说法之一啊！而假设前提也是诡辩的最常用说法之一啊

另外，我还想深入Argu一下，我认为E本身攻击的并不是文中前提（尽管我认为攻击前提也没有什么错）：

题干只是说了“那些做特定服务广告的律师比不做广告的收费低”。这个说法在逻辑上绝对不等于“不做广告的律师做了广告之后收费会降低”。就像说“那些穿红衣服的人工资都比不穿红衣服的高”难道能够等同“不穿红衣服的人穿了红衣服会涨工资”？此间不同还需细细体会！

当然，此60，61是一大题。这样出题本身就是有一定混淆性的。注意60是“IF ... are ture"，也就是说无论statements说的是多么混账的逻辑，都是对的！！此点要注意！而作61时，要彻底忘掉60。不然你自己的逻辑就成了“IF above are ture”怎样去“weaken”了! 受的了吗？

johnsonwxjs

我的理解是，

两个前提：

1.取消限制——LAWYER作广告增多

2.LAWYER作广告收费减少

结论：取消任意一个限制——整体费用降低。

E说LAWYER开始作广告时收费不减少,消弱前提2.

不明白OG对A的解释.  A 说限制真减了.即前提1满足,其不是SUPPORT了结论?

bradywangs

偶觉得e选项的意思是，大多数做广告的律师不会因为做了广告就降低费用（换

句话说，他们做广告是因为他们的费用本来就比其他人的低，而不是做了广告才降

低费用，那么广告做不做和费用是没有直接关系的），也就是说即使广告再多，也

不能说明费用会降低；

d只描述了现在做广告的律师以后继续注明费用情况，这和全体律师就脱离关系了

吧；

zouweiyao

对这种削弱方式表示疑惑, 文章有两个前提:1. fewer restriction=>more

advertise; 2. the lawyer who advertise a specific service usually charge

less; 推出一个结论: if remove any restriction, overall consumer legal

cost will be lower.问削弱

首先, 我对此文章的推论存在疑惑, 由局部怎么能推出整体呢?charge less的律师

仅仅是那些advertise a specific service 的,若只占整个律师业的一小部分, 整

个consumer legal cost怎会下降?

第二, 我对(E)的削弱方式不太理解, 我记得费费说削弱要削弱结论或推理链, 而

不是前提. A说: 小李成绩英文很棒,GMAT一定会考得不错, B回答说:小李英文哪里

好啊,根本不好. 这种情况下, B就没有削弱A. 因为他没有削弱"英文好=>考得好"

这个推理思路.我觉得此题的E选项就是这种形式的回答, 怎么算削弱呢?

第三, 我人为(D)是加强,而不是无关.因为结论是"取消限制=>费用下降"若取消限

制后,以前收费低的律师依然收费低,那么consumer cost才会下降.

请NN指导~!!

yangzhongyan

Choice E ) "Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower

their fees for those services when they begin to advertise" is right on target.

I think you are right: 是属于直接削弱结论的