ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1861|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

lsat-15-2-10

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-3-28 16:33:00 | 只看该作者

lsat-15-2-10

The government of Penglai, an isolated island, proposed eliminating outdoor adverting except for small signs of standard shape that identify places of business. Some island merchants protested that the law would reduce the overall volume of business in Penglai, pointing to a report done by the government indicating that in every industry the Penglai businesses that used outdoor advertising had a larger market share than those that did not.



Which one of the following describes an error of reasoning in the merchants’ argument?



(A) presupposing that there are no good reasons for restricting the use of outdoor advertising in Penglai



(B) assuming without giving justification that the outdoor advertising increased market share by some means other than by diverting trader from competing businesses



(C) ignoring the question of whether the government’s survey of the island could be objective



(D) failing to establish whether the market-share advantage enjoyed by businesses employing outdoor advertising was precisely proportionate to the amount of advertisingB



(E) disregarding the possibility that the government’s proposed restrictions are unconstitutional

Why the answer is B ?



  


沙发
发表于 2004-3-28 17:07:00 | 只看该作者
这道题说一些商家反对政府只设立一些商店的指示牌,因为他们说设立了指示牌的商场比没有设指示牌的更能吸引顾客(市场份额大)


这句话的逻辑错误是,也就是B选项的含义,这些指示牌也许并不想那些商家想象的那样仅仅是为了将顾客从其他商家中吸引走,而是有其他的用途。也就是说政府考虑的是其他原因才设立这些指示牌的,商家仅从招揽顾客这方面加以反对是没有用的。

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2004-3-29 09:15:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢ssss mm,但我还是没看懂你的解释。今天又看了一遍题目,发现了问题所在:merchants protested that the law would reduce the     overall volume。 overall是关键。B的意思是说,protestor没有道理的假设,广告只是divert因而没有增加总量。这就是本题的错误。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-5 09:35
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部