ChaseDream

标题: OG-205中的题 [打印本页]

作者: gsluo    时间: 2003-7-30 10:28
标题: OG-205中的题
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

请教:C中第一个黑体所指的PREDICTION 和第二个黑体的PREDICTION 是同一个吗?
我的观点:前一个黑体的PREDICTION是“广告限制取消,打官司的成本会低”;而第二个是“如果没有明确价格,官司成本会上升” 。由此答案应该是B而非C。困惑。。。ING

作者: gsluo    时间: 2003-7-30 15:42
只好自己顶了!
作者: ca3ltoys    时间: 2004-4-2 02:55
is there    any NN going to answer it? Please explain it    in detail as clear as possible. Thanks.better
作者: ca3ltoys    时间: 2004-4-3 07:41
why does nobody answer it???
作者: ca3ltoys    时间: 2004-4-7 03:00
up again
作者: mikecat    时间: 2004-4-7 19:53

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。


作者: snowflower    时间: 2004-5-28 06:28

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


作者: tulipmontreal    时间: 2004-6-14 10:34
雪花分析的正确!
作者: 清风剑    时间: 2004-7-19 23:41

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.


作者: snowflower    时间: 2004-7-30 03:53
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.
作者: vincent0330    时间: 2004-7-30 23:14
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.

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.


[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-30 23:15:19编辑过]

作者: cuihua    时间: 2004-8-3 22:06
关键是如何理解第二个boldface
作者: xionghuixh    时间: 2004-12-10 12:16

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?


作者: mba174    时间: 2004-12-11 07:20
It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising oflegal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertisingtheir services has increased and legal costs to conxumers have declinesin consequence. -> This is a general phenominon, 'restrictions on the legal service'is not equal to 'the requirement to specify fees for specific services'as stated in the prediction. In other words, The past experiencedoesn't apply to the new issue here:

Howerver, eliminating the statE requirement thatlegal advertisements must specify fees for specific services wouldalmost certainly icrease rather than further reduce consumer's legalcosts.

That's why C says 'the case at issue', 'the case at issue' means 'legaladvertisements must specify fees for specific services', it's ONE kindof restrictions, but it won't reduce costs according to the advocate'spredict as shown in the causal and effect description in the 1st boldface.

作者: Novena    时间: 2005-2-21 22:27

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.


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?


[此贴子已经被作者于2005-2-21 22:28:31编辑过]

作者: springrain    时间: 2005-4-6 07:56

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!


作者: windlake    时间: 2005-5-8 15:01
期待nn解释ing
作者: richard-ma    时间: 2005-6-21 09:18

这题我彻底晕了。。。。。。


哪位NN能把所有的选项给翻译一下?


作者: lindazhou    时间: 2005-6-27 15:02





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?


作者: lindazhou    时间: 2005-6-27 15:03

既然consumer advocateprediction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?
作者: lindazhou    时间: 2005-6-27 15:20

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?


作者: hncsxj    时间: 2005-7-17 09:23

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


作者: snowjing    时间: 2005-7-28 09:40

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!


作者: snowjing    时间: 2005-7-28 23:23
UP!
作者: snowjing    时间: 2005-7-30 09:59
UP!
作者: yyleaf    时间: 2005-8-1 06:49

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?



作者: vacationer    时间: 2005-8-25 00:25

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?


作者: snowjing    时间: 2005-10-7 00:26
以下是引用snowjing在2005-7-28 9:40:00的发言:

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!


作者: cynthia704    时间: 2005-10-8 15:44

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


作者: gonghao    时间: 2006-6-5 11:24
顶上来瞅瞅
作者: goodwaiter    时间: 2006-11-22 11:18

still confused, wish any NN could give a systematic explanation.

Waiting ~~


作者: apoab    时间: 2007-3-6 21:18

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,
            
will not hold三个动词呢??


作者: gustavechi    时间: 2007-3-7 11:39

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


作者: gonghao    时间: 2007-3-8 17:04

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


作者: raikey    时间: 2007-4-9 21:50
明白了.
作者: julianfl    时间: 2007-4-10 00:48

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。


作者: zt_lby    时间: 2007-10-5 07:36
以下是引用julianfl在2007-4-10 0:48:00的发言:

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.!


作者: seafly_diao    时间: 2008-7-7 17:04

julianfl把握了这类文章的脉络逻辑

经典呀经典


作者: rhine521    时间: 2008-7-22 01:49
"The case at issue"指的是什么?
作者: yinlixiao    时间: 2008-7-28 10:03
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..."



作者: sausau    时间: 2008-9-30 01:46
我也没有懂og的解释,来看看

作者: sausau    时间: 2008-9-30 03:06
the case at issue根据陈向东的书翻译好像是“在争论的情形中。”个人认为这道题关键就是看消费者拥护者认同的论断,就是 however之后的那句非黑体字嘛。
julianfl总结得超级好。

 

作者: jonathan1987    时间: 2008-10-12 19:36
我顶, 这题我不会
作者: jwawa    时间: 2008-10-13 18:22
我觉得这个issue呢就是要不要取消广告必须明确什么服务什么价格的规定。consumer advocate的观点是不能取消,因为你在广告中不要给价格了,他们就没有以价格打广告吸引客户的动机了,那自然,他们打广告的名气大了,成本大了,还要涨价了。 所以,这个限制规定的取消,和以前,你取消其他一些关于律师广告的限制造成的影响是不一样的,那么自然以前那些generally true 和also true的老效果也就不能放在这里说了。

这是我对C选项的理解。
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.



作者: smiling_cd    时间: 2009-1-6 14:29

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