ChaseDream

标题: OG-76 [打印本页]

作者: triangle 时间: 2005-4-11 09:48
标题: OG-76
76. A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer’s well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers’services cost more than those of their imitators.
The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer’s rendition of a song from a good imitator’s rendition of the same song.
(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.
(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.
答案是E，想请教的是这里的renditions of songs 指的是什么呢，是和C中的original versions 一样,抑或这里的renditions of songs 指的是翻唱，是由imitators 演绎的？

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-4-12 14:35:34编辑过]

作者: gre3333 时间: 2005-4-11 22:51

rendition：表演，演唱。那么，E的well-known renditions of songs跟C的original versions是一样的。

作者: wotaowoyao 时间: 2006-11-1 17:09

请问OG C怎么理解

作者: wotaowoyao 时间: 2006-11-1 17:10

作者: wotaowoyao 时间: 2006-11-1 17:15

黏贴不了

C:The arguement assumes that some well-known rendition of songs available,but doesnot require that any versions be unavailable

另外，如何判断假设题选项为无关，如A为irrevalent?

作者: bennent 时间: 2007-4-11 16:44

至顶版里面有写

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=24&id=192169&star=1#1807226

76. A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.

第一句是背景（了解大意即可）

注意第2句中的as a result，在这里是sub-conclusion的指示词，那么它后面的sub-conclusion就是结论的条件

Conclusion(指示词，therefore, since): 判定是因果型结论 famous singers cost more->ad cost rise

思路1：排除他因，没有别的因素影响advertising costs

（注意关键字，ad costs, famous singers, more, imitators）

思路2：无因无果，famous singers services不cost more，ad费用就不rise（不大好）

有因有果 famous singers, ad 费用增加

思路3：因果没颠倒（ad 费用高引起famous singers 高于后者，不好）

所以思路1比较好，排除他因

作者: amywangwei 时间: 2007-4-11 20:19

说说我的看法，我觉得狒狒对逻辑的总结很有用，假设是必要条件，一般可用取非削弱来做，象这一题E选项，如果广告行业不用名曲，那famous singers’services cost more than those of their imitators还是less than都没有关系，因为压根跟名歌手无关。

再看A，原文从头到尾讲的是名歌手，翻唱和广告成本，没说大多数人或者看广告的人的行为，所以是无关的

个人理解

作者: lifan51 时间: 2009-7-10 23:44
同意楼上的，Ｅ是搭桥，advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercial不代表要用原唱，可以根本就不用well-known renditions of songs.因此只有确保用了well-known renditions of songs,　famous singers' service cost 才会影响费用

作者: mxlpolaris 时间: 2009-8-22 13:27

以下是引用lifan51在2009/7/10 23:44:00的发言：
同意楼上的，Ｅ是搭桥，advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercial不代表要用原唱，可以根本就不用well-known renditions of songs.因此只有确保用了well-known renditions of songs,　famous singers' service cost 才会影响费用

这题我是用取非的，可是LS说架桥，我不是很理解哦，可以详细点吗？

谢谢！！

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/8/22 13:27:43编辑过]

作者: michelle77 时间: 2009-9-10 17:47

答案能选出，但对OG中C的解释实在是不明白

The argument assumes that some well-known renditions of songs are available,

but does not require that any versions be unavailable. (choice C)

望NN解释下~

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/9/10 18:03:04编辑过]

作者: michelle77 时间: 2009-9-10 18:06

答案能选出，但对OG中C的解释实在是不明白

The argument assumes that some well-known renditions of songs are available, but does not require that any versions be unavailable. (choice C)

1）some取非是要用any...not...吗？

2）如果是，下面这种理解对吗？对c取非后，the original versions of any well-known songs are available for use,而原文没说the versions of any are unavailable.所以对原文没起到削弱的作用。

望NN解释下！

（终于能正常发送了，刚才试了半天，上一贴内容打的全，但只显示一部分~ ⊙﹏⊙）

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/9/10 18:08:45编辑过]

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)