ChaseDream

标题: LSAT-23-4-10 argue against [打印本页]

作者: bryan0806 时间: 2004-9-14 11:08
标题: LSAT-23-4-10 argue against

10. Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it. The reason this technique is so effective is that it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy. Therefore, candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this argumentative technique in the speeches.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously limits the effectiveness of adopting the argument’s recommendation?

(A) Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media.

(B) Many people do not find arguments made by politicians convincing, since the arguments are often one-sided or oversimplify the issues.

(C) People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate’s character than on the exact positions of the candidate.

(D) People regard a political candidate more favorably if they think that the candidate respects an opponent’s position even while disagreeing with it.（A）

(E) Political candidates have to address audiences of many different sizes and at many different locations in the course of a political campaign.

我查了cambridge

argue (REASON) [Show phonetics]
verb [I or T]
to give the reasons for your opinion, idea, belief, etc:
The minister argued for/in favour of/against making cuts in military spending.
[+ that] The minister argued that cuts in military spending were needed.You can argue the case either way.

所以arguing briefly against his or her position 不就是providing reasons for accepting it 这一点我觉得很奇怪

这题我觉得C也可以阿有没有人帮我解惑一下

谢谢!!

作者: leeon 时间: 2004-9-14 16:59
不管C成不成立，原文的推理this technique is so effective is that it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy－>a speaker more convincing if the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it都是成立的！进一步推导candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this argumentative technique in the speeches，因此无论C成立与否，和the effectiveness of adopting the argument’s recommendation都没有关系！

作者: bryan0806 时间: 2004-9-14 19:07

thanks, leeon

我想我明白你的意思仔细想了一下 C的确对于此方法的效能影响不大

原文的要点在于这方法会使人们觉得演讲者有公平的思考并值得信赖而不是演讲者本身的政治立场

不过还请大家帮忙 argue against 的问题

如果argue against = to give the reasons for your opinion, idea, belief, etc:

那么原文中这句the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it.

就显得不合逻辑请教大家感谢!!

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-9-14 20:28

1。如果C改为People decide which political candidate to vote for on the basis of their opinions of the candidate’s character，rarther than on the exact positions of the candidate. 则为正确选项。

2。ARGUE AGAINST是反对。the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it.这就话的意思是，先退一步，再前进

作者: bryan0806 时间: 2004-9-14 21:57

以下是引用lawyer_1在2004-9-14 20:28:00的发言：

2。ARGUE AGAINST是反对。the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it.这就话的意思是，先退一步，再前进

1.了解如果人们还有以positions作投票的依归那就表示方法有效反之则无效

2看来这种一词多义的单字是我最头痛的看来还是要多看文章来揣摩

thanks , lawyer

作者: lzh1974 时间: 2004-9-16 08:49
我查到的答案是A,为什么呢

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2004-9-16 10:13
标题: LSAT-23-4-10 argue against
答案是A没错。因为对NATIONAL投票人的影响是通过news media。如果news media不说candidates的全部讲话，不就达不到目的了。

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-5 12:29

bryan0806 发表于 2004-9-14 11:08
10. Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the speaker begins a speech by arguing b ...

Spot the question type: Weaken

這題不用想太多, 來, 先抓論證核心。

Core of the argument:

If the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position providing reasoning for accepting it, it must be effective ---> it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trust worthy.

Thus if you want to be successful, you must use this technique.

Ok, apparently, according to the technique, you must first acknowledge your statement, and then against your statement, and then offering reasons, supporting your statement.

What if anyone listening to the politician 斷章取義？

Ok, let us dive into the answers.

A. Politician usually does not have any control over news media ( What if news media 斷章取義？）
我是八立新聞電視台老闆然後我不支持中國國民黨, 然後為了支持中華人民共和國共產黨, 我斷章取義地去報導某一個政客正利用此種策略“假裝攻擊自己”的言論來引導群眾意見, 那這樣的策略反而會攻擊到這個政客自己

B. It does not really matter to the argument of whether the technique is effective or not

C. It does not change the fact that politician can still use the technique to effectively attract the audience originally attracted by their audiences.

( 你因為候選人白富美很喜歡, 阿現在有五個白富美你都很喜歡, 不代表這五個中一兩個不能用如此策略去更吸引群眾而成為成功政客）

D. You can still respect your opponent's position even while disagreeing with it " and " be more successful if using the technique.

E. So?

這題很直觀吧, Ａ正確答案無誤

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