is there any NN going to answer it? Please explain it in detail as clear as possible. Thanks.better 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。
答案是C啊，因为第一个boldface是说预期价格限制取消，价格下降，结果consumer的cost下降。但是这个预期用的是一个让步语气，也就是说并非是真的。第二个boldface说如果取消价格限制，consumer的cost会上升，实际上这个prediction指的是consumer advocate的第三句话，即HOWEVER后面的那个PREDICTION。因为开始的两句话都是让步语气，所以并非是这个CONSUMER ADVOCATE真正的PREDICTION，而HOWEVER后的才是他真正的预期。所以第二个BLODFACE是支持这个PREDICTION的。
抛砖引玉啊
与Snowflower商榷：
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.
此两句是已存在之事实，however后是prediction. Prediction 与第一个Boldface部分相背.其余同意snowflower.
dont forget the "Consumer advocate: ". By quoting the speech of the advocate, we can say that the advocate admit and introduce those, " It is generally true........It is also true....", in order to opposite the main argument. And this technique is generally called "concession". Therefore, no matter what the advocate concesses may be true, or may be not, those quoted speech should refer to the prediction.
For example, some body say " Hay!! I am late because of the car accidence. It is true!! "
Maybe this is true, or maybe this guy tell a lie. But no matter what he said, as a whole, it's a prediction for the third party, which generally means the readers, like us.
The first boldface portion does present a pattern of cause and effect, and the
advocate’s prediction is that his time the pattern will be different.
his time 是不是有误?是不是这次的意思?
我对B选项本身的意思不太理解，OG的解释也太简略了，不知道哪位NN能帮我解释一下B的错误？
我也不明白B的意思,大家帮帮我啊1
(B) The 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.
黑体字部分什么意思啊?帮我翻译一下呀!
这题我彻底晕了。。。。。。
哪位NN能把所有的选项给翻译一下？
 答案是C啊，因为第一个boldface是说预期价格限制取消，价格下降，结果consumer的cost下降。但是这个预期用的是一个让步语气，也就是说并非是真的。第二个boldface说如果取消价格限制，consumer的cost会上升，实际上这个prediction指的是consumer advocate的第三句话，即HOWEVER后面的那个PREDICTION。因为开始的两句话都是让步语气，所以并非是这个CONSUMER ADVOCATE真正的PREDICTION，而HOWEVER后的才是他真正的预期。所以第二个BLODFACE是支持这个PREDICTION的。 |
既然consumer advocate的prediction是反对取消广告限制，那还是什么支持者呀。
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.
这两部分指的是同样的预测还是两个？
既然consumer advocate的prediction是反对取消广告限制，那还是什么支持者呀。
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.as to option B, i try to translate.
第一部分作为consumer advocate争论的模式在这个案例的讨论中再次被提及，第二部分告知这种模式（继第一种模式）部成立的条件。
对否？
e. The first acknowledges a considerration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that positon.
这句话怎么翻译？谢谢
OG逻辑最后一题第一次出现句子作用题。
本题对题目本身理解没有问题，但是对选项的理解及对句子作用题的解法却不是很熟悉。
请高人翻译一下C，"The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue;" 是不是这里consumer advocate predict与second boldface 中的prediction是不一样的？如何理解OG关于C的解释中"The first boldface portion does present a pattern of cause and effect, and the advocate's prediction is that this time the pattern will be different." ?
请大家帮忙看看，谢谢！
虽然感觉明白了，但总觉得有点不太清晰，哪位能帮忙把这道题的5的选项翻译一下？
E. The first acknowledges a considerration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that positon.
While the role of the first boldface portion is correctly described in choice E, that of the second is not, since the position the advocate is defending is not the second boldface portion, but rather the position identified above. Thus this choice is incorrect.
这个怎么理解呢?
OG逻辑最后一题第一次出现句子作用题。
本题对题目本身理解没有问题，但是对选项的理解及对句子作用题的解法却不是很熟悉。
请高人翻译一下C，"The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue;" 是不是这里consumer advocate predict与second boldface 中的prediction是不一样的？如何理解OG关于C的解释中"The first boldface portion does present a pattern of cause and effect, and the advocate's prediction is that this time the pattern will be different." ?
请大家帮忙看看，谢谢！
这题的关键在于对"the case at issue"的理解. 其实"the case at issue"就是指文章讨论的重心或结论, 即a certain position that the consumer advocate argues for.
理解了这一点, 就很容易理解C选项了: 第一部分BF是该position所否定的, 所以"the first pattan will not hold in the case at issue"; 第二部分BF举了"specify fee arrangement"作为consideration 支持该position.
从此题可以看出解BF题两个最关键的地方:
1)找出哪里是conclusion, 然后分清推导的过程, 哪里是evidence, 哪里是mid-conclusion, 哪里是consideration.
2)严重注意连接词. 如, however, but等. 判断evidenc, conclusion之间关系如何.
水平有限, 目前只有这两点领悟. 恳请XDJM们指导!
Dear snowjing MM你的領悟真是對我大有幫助，因為這類題目完全是我的死穴…太感謝囉~~~
"The first boldface portion does present a pattern of cause and effect, and the advocate's prediction is that this time the pattern will be different." 我的理解是，第一句BF的部份提出了一種因果模式，但是advocate的預期是在這次的case中這樣的模式會有所改變,也就是However後面接下來的敘述…
不知道這樣的理解是否正確?請大家多多指教
still confused, wish any NN could give a systematic explanation.
Waiting ~~
C)The first is a pattern of cause and effect that consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue;
关于C选项的前半，我想请问合乎文法吗? 为何两个句子里会有
is, predicts, 跟
will not hold三个动词呢??
我的建议是先仔细看懂Consumer advocate的观点，即他的预测（prediction)。他是想说如果关于州法中律师做广告的全部限制都去除的话，最终会导致律师费涨价。所以在However之前，他先承认去除部分限制后律师费会下降这一事实（这似乎于他的观点是相反的）。在However之后，他提出了specify fees for specific services这一限制的作用，然后声称如果包括这一限制的法律限制全部去除的话，律师将在发广告时将没有incentive来降价，最终导致了他prediction的出现，即涨价。
所以，Consumer advocate想要的不是：1）反对去除州法中对律师做广告的限制；2）继续目前州法中对律师做广告的限制。他最想要看到的是：有限制的去除州法中对律师做广告的限制，但是保留specify fees for specific services这一限制。
看清了consumer advocate的想法，就好办了。首先，It is generally true 。。。 It is also true。。。绝不是generalization或weight against, 因为它实质上并不和发言人的观点相背，排除A、E； 也绝不是evidence，因为它不直接支持发言人的观点，甚至从表面上看有点不利于发言人观点，所以排除D。
然后 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 这一句内部的确有个因果关系，正如B和C所说。但它的作用如我上面分析的是在后面被有限的推翻，而不是被repeat来支持发言人认为要涨价的prediction.
这是我的理解，属于事后诸葛亮那种，一开始我是选错的，惭愧啊
先说了一段乌托邦式的梦想
however后面说了一段真正的prediction，简直就是大相径庭。
C is the answer
感觉Boldface题目之所以比较简单，因为在原文中有明显提示词。
在做GWD的时候，感觉大部分的BF题目，都会出现However, But, Yet/ Since, Because/ it shows/ if...then, should be.../ Therefore, argue that...等等。
如果做题目时来不及了，可以尝试一下不读原文。
（1）However前面就是作者challenge,disagree，call into question的东西，后面就是作者support的东西，可能是全文的conclusion, position等等。
（2）Since, Because是原因，选项中常出现 evidence,explanation, based，consideration等词。
（3）it shows等等是例证，选项中常出现 ...based ... finding，in support of, evidence 等词
（4）if...then, should be 是一种判断的依据， 选项中常出现 judgement 等词。
（5）Therefore, argue that... 就肯定是conclusion了
不过（2）--（5）都要看清楚是在However等转折词前，还是后面：）
仅仅是做题中的感觉，不知道大家怎么觉得。
感觉Boldface题目之所以比较简单，因为在原文中有明显提示词。
在做GWD的时候，感觉大部分的BF题目，都会出现However, But, Yet/ Since, Because/ it shows/ if...then, should be.../ Therefore, argue that...等等。
如果做题目时来不及了，可以尝试一下不读原文。
（1）However前面就是作者challenge,disagree，call into question的东西，后面就是作者support的东西，可能是全文的conclusion, position等等。
（2）Since, Because是原因，选项中常出现 evidence,explanation, based，consideration等词。
（3）it shows等等是例证，选项中常出现 ...based ... finding，in support of, evidence 等词
（4）if...then, should be 是一种判断的依据， 选项中常出现 judgement 等词。
（5）Therefore, argue that... 就肯定是conclusion了
不过（2）--（5）都要看清楚是在However等转折词前，还是后面：）
仅仅是做题中的感觉，不知道大家怎么觉得。
well-said.!
julianfl把握了这类文章的脉络逻辑
经典呀经典
先顶一下 julianfl
的总结。这类题看来以后如果逻辑上不好理解，就直接拿however后面的主题分析
开始我也是不理解，感觉两个黑体是完全不一样的。前一个是说，如果 每次取消一点，会lower cost。后一个是说，如果全部取消，就会increase the cost。他们的条件都是不一样的
但是题目里面既然要他们的关系，然后都归结到一点 in the case at issue--如果全部取消了，怎么怎么样. 那就要把这个issue放在文章的conclusion上，把这两个都往上面靠（选B的错误就在于，前后两个不是归结到一个conclusion上）。advocate argue about the issue 就是 increase the cost， 两个黑体的关系当然就是：前一个will not hold,后一个support.
俺也是事后诸葛亮：（
其实觉得这段话不是只有一个结论的，作者想表达的意思是一个step by step的：律师做广告了，可以降低大家cost；如果继续让他们做广告，还可以更降低；可是如果全部取消，就会有反效果，cost反而高了。--我觉得这三步是一起的，不可以分开。
不过既然是考试，既然是要做题。还是按照保险的套路来，用however后面的来当结论吧。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |