求解一道BF题~~ VCR07545

annyspanish · 发表于 2012-9-15 15:29:01

Prep2012-Pack1-CR-052 VCR07545 Hard
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 consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ 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 arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.
In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
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.
C. The first is a pattern of cause and effect that 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 support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
E. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.

答案选C，可是C选项的描述读起来好绕，不太理解...
求帮忙...
THX！

windconniewj · 发表于 2013-2-18 17:10:49

同问，我开始选b

Pepperamy2013 · 发表于 2015-1-12 13:24:35

同问！！！

collinwang · 发表于 2015-1-12 13:51:55

选C没问题，将文章割裂成3部分
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 consumers have declined in consequence.
However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ 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 arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.
解答：题干说的是州内律师对legal service打广告→他们的收费低于不打广告的，紧接着说州内对legal service广告的限制减少→更多的律师会对他们的legal service打广告→消费service的消费者成本降低
于是第一部分根据部分事实形成了一种逻辑关系：事实:法律服务广告↑ 导致律师收费↓ 消费者成本↓ predict:州内取消广告限制→法律服务广告↑→消费者成本↓

紧接着，注意文中的“However"的转折语气，又陈述了个事实，如果州内法律取消对legal adveritsements的限制，会意味着取消了legal advertisements必须要specify fee for specific service的相关要求而导致增加消费者的成本，再次注意作者用了"rather than"的比较来表明是增加消费者成本而非减少。

因此第二部分的论断其实推翻了第一部分关于州内取消法律广告限制能够降低消费者成本的推论，而且紧接着用第三部分进一步阐述第二部分的论断

即如果第二部分这样，律师将没有降低费用的动机，消费者成本不会降低；而如果政府不要求specify fee for specific service那么律师们现在打广告→消费者成本↓的事实就压根儿不会存在，因为打了广告的会增加他们的要价

而C选项

The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.

说的就是，第一句话就是讲了一个consumer advocate 在这篇issue中预测并不会真正实现的因果关系，而后面这句话恰恰就是为consumer adocate的预测提供了佐证和支持。

hanssha0 · 发表于 2017-8-10 22:03:03

collinwang 发表于 2015-1-12 13:51
选C没问题，将文章割裂成3部分
It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertis ...

很棒，谢谢啦！

喂喂喵 · 发表于 2020-8-24 04:45:02

我还是不太能理解这5个选项。但题目能看懂这个逻辑：
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 consumers have declined in consequence.
第一句话：打法律服务广告的律师的收费<不打法律服务广告的律师的收费
因为：打广告的开销成本不会导致对客户收费的提高，说明广告的开销成本<广告带来的客户增长量的收益。那就可以通过降低对客户的服务收费，让利给客户。
第二句话是对前一句话事实的总结：减少法律服务广告的限制（换句话说，倡导法律服务广告），允许更多律师打广告，于是对客户的收费降低。
However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ 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 arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.
第二段第一句话：阐述了第一段的结论中其实有一个前提（premise）: 对法律服务广告收取费用多少的限制。（注：不是对法律服务广告的限制）
逻辑：对律师的法律服务广告收费费用太高，导致律师的广告开销成本>广告带来的客户增长量的收益，那自然会导致律师对客户收费提高（原文原句翻译：律师不会再对降低对客户的收费有兴趣。意思就是不想/不愿意降低嘛！）
第二段第二句话：如果是正在打广告的律师，广告开销被提高了，那没办法，只能提高对客户的收费。还不如不打广告的呢。
全文章就一个意思：
广告开销成本要控制在小于广告带来的客户增长量的收益，才能让利给客户。

求解一道BF题~~ VCR07545

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()