问一下毛毛的og逻辑分类

irisfrance

这道题是第二个分类main conclusion下的一道例题
我读了好几遍 跟他的解释相反了
Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent automobile collisions[c1]. However, since daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator, any such laws would obviously be more effective in preventing collisions in those countries. In fact. the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.[c2]

Which of the following conclusions could be most properly drawn from the information given above?

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as[c3] would drivers who did not use their headlights.

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor[c4] in automobile collisions.

(C) The proportion [c5]of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have Daytime headlight laws.

(D) Fewer[c6] automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States.

(E)[c7] Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws.
毛毛的注释：离赤道越远，DHL理应更有效阻止车祸，但是离赤道很远的国家有DHL的只有美国；信息2：DHL可以减少摩托车事故。其他有该法律的国家距离赤道都比美国近，而DHL并没有十分有效（否则不会只有美国有该法律）。

我段话的意思我怎么读都是：DHL在离赤道越远的地方更能有效组织车祸，事实上，真正实行DHL的那些国家是比美国距离赤道更远的国家

我读了好几遍都是这个意思啊。。。最后一句，可是注释里写的却是，离赤道越远，DHL理应更有效阻止车祸，但是离赤道很远的国家有DHL的只有美国

我也不知道是哪里理解错了
请大家给我讲讲。。

hellen7

弱弱的问一下，OG12的分类在哪找的，我没有搜到~~

luxnii

选项C的注解说 “对原文的第一句perfect重写。”
个人认为 是对原文的perfect重写，但不是第一句。
56. The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one
against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions.
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.
(B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.
(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
(D) If more lawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services.
(E) If the only restrictions on the advertising of legal services were those that apply to every type of advertising, most lawyers would advertise their services.
Argument Construction Situation Consumer legal costs will be reduced if the state removes even one restriction on lawyers’advertisements because the fewer the restrictions, the greater the number of lawyers who advertise, and lawyers who advertise charge less than lawyers who do not advertise.
Reasoning What conclusion can logically be drawn? The argument sets up an inverse proportion: the fewer the number of restrictions on ads, the greater the number of lawyers who advertise. This is true of all restrictions and all lawyers. Th erefore, removing any one restriction necessarily increases the number of lawyers who advertise.
A The lawyers may charge more, but nothing in the passage rules out the possibility that no lawyer will charge more.
B No evidence in the passage indicates that there will be an increased use of legal services.
C Correct. This statement properly identifies a conclusion that logically follows, because reducing any restriction will increase the number of lawyers who advertise.
D Nothing in the passage indicates that lawyers who continue not to advertise will be compelled to lower their fees.
E The argument concerns numbers of advertisers rather than types; it remains possible that few lawyers would advertise.

ak007

这个翻译我也没读懂。。。

irisfrance

Your understanding is right. US does not have laws requiring DHL. And the answer should be E).

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/7/2 23:42:16)

谢谢你~ 答案是对的~ 就是奇怪怎么我读的跟他翻译的不一样~

sdcar2010

Your understanding is right. US does not have laws requiring DHL. And the answer should be E).