以下是引用aqua20061206在2007-5-10 21:43:00的发言：GWD7-Q41: Magazine Publisher: Our magazine does not have a liberal bias. It is true that when a book review we had commissioned last year turned out to express distinctly conservative views, we did not publish it until we had also obtained a second review that took a strongly liberal position. Clearly, however, our actions demonstrate not a bias in favor of liberal views but rather a commitment to a balanced presentation of diverse opinions. Determining which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the cogency of the magazine publisher’s response?
Determining which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the cogency of the magazine publisher’s response? - Whether any other magazines in which the book was reviewed carried more than one review of the book
- Whether the magazine publishes unsolicited book reviews as well as those that it has commissioned
- Whether in the event that a first review commissioned by the magazine takes a clearly liberal position the magazine would make any efforts to obtain further reviews
- Whether the book that was the subject of the two reviews was itself written from a clearly conservative or a clearly liberal point of view
- Whether most of the readers of the magazine regularly read the book reviews that the magazine publishes
凭感觉选对了,能帮我解释一下提干吗(有点读不顺)?谢谢
结论：杂志的出版商声称自己的杂志没有自由主义的倾向。
论据：去年其收到一篇委托的书评，其有明显的保守主义倾向，于是杂志社就没有发表，直到后来又收到一篇明显自由主义倾向的书评。 C是说，如果杂志社第一次收到的就是有自由主义倾向的书评，是不是还会去找其它的书评？
如果答案是，那就说明杂志社没有倾向。如果不是，就说明其有自由主义的倾向。
注意“Whether in the event
that a first review commissioned by the magazine takes a clearly liberal position
the magazine would make any efforts to obtain further reviews” that... 是做event的同位语。 其它答案都很好排除，D是说“是否其书评的对象这本书是否有倾向”，这和杂志社是否有倾向无关。 | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2007-5-10 21:43:00
