OG NO。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 conxumers have declines in consequence. Howerver, eliminating the statE requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly icrease 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 arrangments, many lawyeres who now advertise would increase their fees. In the consumer advocate's argument ,the two potions in boldface play which of the following roles? a. The first is a generalizaion that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization. b. Ther 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 a pattern of cause and effect taht 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 supportof a certain prediction; the second is that prediction. e. The first acknowledges a considerration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that positon. answer: c
我也是第一次不理解 "the case at issue" ，所以选了B, 而不是C. 虽然楼上说了很多对这个题目不同的理解，但是我觉得关键还是理解"the case at issue"。 我返回去看了OG的解释，里面说了，“The first BOLDFACE sentence shows the cause-and-effect relations of ..., a relation the advocate predicts will not continue in the current case.” 从这句解释中我们可以看出，OG认为“the current case" 指的是"eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services..." 如果明白了"the case at issue"指的是什么,就这里区别出B选项和C选项了。 这里我认为，"the case at issue"指的是"eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services..."
肯定是C呀！！因为选项里面所说的prediction是指Howerver, eliminating the statE requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly icrease rather than further reduce consumer's legal costs.所以应该是那种cause and effect的模式不会在这个case里面发生。
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 conxumers have declined in consequence.
right, they are the truth, absolutely. but they are not the advocate's prediction. and this question's focus is the advicate's prediction not the truth.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-7-30 10:28:00
楼主
is there any NN going to answer it? Please explain it in detail as clear as possible. Thanks.better 
