再问OG11 逻辑 60-61题 想不通

saphirelucky

60-61 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.

 

60. 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.

61, which of the following would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?

A.     The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services.

B.     The state is unlikely to remove all the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services.

C.     Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise

D.    Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required.

E.     Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their feed for those services when they begin to advertise.

这两道题，看OG解释，听老师讲怎么也搞不懂。特别是在加进了‘specify fee arrangements’的关系后，更复杂了。能否请牛人谈谈你们的思路？谢谢！

saphirelucky

顶一顶,牛人快帮忙看看把!!

wofsrt

原文推理：less restriction---->more ads----->lower fees

60.C讲得是remove restriction(less restriction)---->more ads符合原文推理，也就是说是从原文推导出来的

61.E讲得是less restriction---->more ads----->not lower fees　属于有因无果式的削弱

请大家指正

llxx1985cn

可是我觉得61的E完全把题目中所说的实事给否定了啊，题目中已经说了the lawyers who adverstise a specific service usually charge less for that services......这相当于一个实事啊？

wofsrt

削弱题中直接否定前提是不对的，但是lower fees是结论，不是前提。

saphirelucky

三个问题

首先, 61.E讲得是less restriction---->more ads----->not lower fees　属于有因无果式的削弱

可是我怎么没看出E说了less restriction---->more ads??

其次, 如果lower fees是结论的话,那么Therefore 后面的那段话是什么？

第三， 削弱题中直接否定前提是不对的．那么哪些类型的题可以直接否定前提？

真诚谢谢各位参与讨论！！！

twinkle99

我的一点理解，E并没有削弱前提。 文中的前提是“打广告的律师费用比没打广告的律师费用低”，这是在不同的人中进行对比； 但E的weaken是“没打过广告的律师开始打广告费用不一定比自己以前收费低”，这是同一个人打广告前后的对比。 综上，E是说虽然限制去除了，打广告的律师多了，但这批才开始打广告的律师收取的费用不一定比以前低，所以消费者的legal cost并不能得到减少。

Rohto

以下是引用twinkle99在2007-8-15 20:31:00的发言：

我的一点理解，E并没有削弱前提。 文中的前提是“打广告的律师费用比没打广告的律师费用低”，这是在不同的人中进行对比； 但E的weaken是“没打过广告的律师开始打广告费用不一定比自己以前收费低”，这是同一个人打广告前后的对比。 综上，E是说虽然限制去除了，打广告的律师多了，但这批才开始打广告的律师收取的费用不一定比以前低，所以消费者的legal cost并不能得到减少。

我支持这个解释！

Rohto

我一想什么充分必要条件的脑袋就会短路，克服好久了也不见效，可能这种方法不适合我，

我刚才也刚好看到了这题,觉得

60： 问which of the following must be true? 即问what conclusion can logically be drawn?

参考解释：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. --〉这是一个generally情况，the fewer...the greater=if...then...,其实可以看作一个小的前提结论，即上面有位说的fact;因此推出一个must be true的答案。

61：Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?

根据原文，只能推导fewer restriction-->more ads，不能往前推了，

参考解释：While it may be true that more lawyers will advertise if there
are fewer restrictions,(fewer restriction-->more ads) the cost paid by consumers will not decrease if most of the newly advertising
lawyers do not charge lower fees.(<--usually charge less;vs. when the restriction about price is removed)

To: 可是我觉得61的E完全把题目中所说的实事给否定了啊，题目中已经说了the lawyers who adverstise a specific service usually charge less for that services......这相当于一个实事啊？

我觉得这是个可以攻击的事实，ususally情况下Lawyers会怎样，现在条件变了，引入了一个特殊情况，if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, Lawyer当然可以有不同的反应。

我觉得这两个题搭配得很好，教会看哪些内容可以攻击，哪些不用，攻击有限定的前提，抓住修饰成分一般为可攻击点。

不好意思，说得比较乱。