标题: 【求助】OG12 86 有一点不解，求大牛点拨！！ [打印本页] 作者: 醒醒Shine 时间: 2014-4-6 11:57 标题: 【求助】OG12 86 有一点不解，求大牛点拨！！ 86. Keith: Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually. Consequently, jobs will be lost and profits diminished. Therefore, these regulations will harm the country’s economy.
Laura: The $25 billion spent by some businesses will be revenue for others. Jobs and profits will be gained as well as lost.
Laura responds to Keith by
(A) demonstrating that Keith’s conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand
(B) challenging the plausibility似乎有理 of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
(C) suggesting that Keith’s argument overlooks a mitigating缓和、缓冲 consequence
(D) reinforcing Keith’s conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Keith cites
(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Keith’s argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
K 安装a和s在t和a，花费娱乐业25每年;将会有失业、利润减少；政策有害经济
L 25会变成别的行业的收入，增加的会抵消减少的
我明白这题选C。我的问题是B—— challenging the plausibility似乎有理 of the evidence that serves as the basis for Keith’s argument
这里的plausibility of the evidence我理解是娱乐业25的花销确实会可能造成娱乐业自己的失业、利润减少
而Laura在辩论的时候也承认了这个花销，只是说这钱会对别的行业有好处，再者来抵消娱乐业的损失啊。
那这样的话，Laura不就正好是challenge了K的evidence吗？
不明白B错在哪里T^T
求大牛点拨呀 作者: wyw1018 时间: 2014-4-6 12:44
个人观点：
keith的evidence只是这句话Compliance with new government regulations requiring the installation of smoke alarms and sprinkler systems in all theaters and arenas will cost the entertainment industry $25 billion annually后面的subconclusion 和conclusion是Keith的reasoning
而你也说了laura在辩论的时候也承认了这个花销，所以laura没有challenging keith的evidence作者: hemodata 时间: 2014-4-13 15:39
对，同ls，论据本身没有受到攻击作者: 醒醒Shine 时间: 2014-4-13 23:28
