三读OG，关于weaken是不是可以针对前提？

ppjelly

请问NN，weaken argument和weaken conclusion不一样吧？？本来逻辑还挺好的，这个问题突然昏掉了。

1)weaken argument:可以weaken前提，因为argument是指整个论证过程?

2)weaken conclusion:当然就不能weaken前提，仅仅针对conclusion那一句话weaken？

OG10-12
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 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.

Which of the following, if true, 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 of 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

E. Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.
    
以下蓝色字体是lawerNN的高论：

1。不要管什麽前提还是命题，没意义，前提也是一种命题。反对前提如果使前提对结论的证明力减弱，这个反对前提就是答案，如果没使前提对结论证明力削弱，就不是答案。

2。本题其实是直接反驳结论。原文有两个证据：一是限制越少，做广告的律师越多。二是做specific service广告的律师通常收费比别的律师少。结论是去掉限制，总收费会下降。其实第二个证据和结论没多少关系，第一个证据才有关系。总收费是否下降取决于做广告的律师的收费是否变化（原文没信息决定哪些不做广告的律师收费是否受影响，故不必考虑），E说刚开始就不下降，直接否定结论。

但是，确实也有同学提出“前提是不可以反对的”。我突然想到，是不是因为题目的问法有区别呢？如下题：

GWD28-Q18;GWD2-12

Which of the following most logically completes the passage? 

Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagiadecided two years ago to increase by
20 percent the government-provided pension paid to all Runagians over 65.  Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians.  Nevertheless, many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________.

A.       They rely entirely on the government pension for their income

B.      Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check

C.      They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation

D.       The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high

E.       In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, butonly by enough to provide them with a comfortable living

本题答案E，可是B\C都可以看成对应前提“Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible, and the increase has been duly received by all eligible”的反对。但却没有选！所以，我真是有点搞不清楚了，还请NN指教！

 

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-10-24 21:14:40编辑过]

ppjelly

顶，请NN看看吧。