OG-11题

Dennies

d is out of the scope!there is no reason to conclude D

some lawyerswho do not advertise is irrelative information.

芙蓉菜菜

我觉得关键就在于问题是 If the statements in the passage are true, which of the following must be true?

C就是重复文章的内容，所以must be true,

D和文章的对应关系是如果D对，文章一定对，但是从文章不一定能推出D

chinayeanson

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services

that is:

限制少=》广告多

so:

choice C is "must be true".  And choice D may be true.

携隐

以下是引用徵徵在2005-4-1 15:00:00的发言：
D错，难道是跑出了原文的范围？还是不明白D为什么错

MUST BE TRUE题，如果文章存在推理过程，则找推理起点，从推理起点列出整个推理链，然后拿推理链里面的每项去对应找答案。－－from lawyer《考试时如何做逻辑题》

也就是说，列出推理链后，只要不是推理链中的项，全是无关选项。

本题推理链：限制降低－》律师做广告增加－》降低费用－》降低全民cost

本题选项：
A：取消限制－》charge more。其中，charge more没有在以上推理链中出现
B：减少限制－》更多customers使用legal service。其中，cunstomer没有在以上推理链中出现
C：取消限制－》律师做广告增加。完全符合以上推理链内容。
D：律师降低费用－》不做广告的律师也会降低费用。不做广告的律师没有出现在以上推理链中。
E：限制适用于各类广告－》律师做广告增加。第一项“适用各种广告”没有在以上推理链中。

MUST BE TRUE题的答案要严格符合原文给出的信息。所以如果原文存在推理链，答案必须是推理链中的项，要不就是顺推，要不就是逆否。

arben

OG11题的解释 A,B,C,D,为何contrary to A,B,C,D 就错，这是怎样的一种思维方式，我想掌握，但是我看不明白，请牛牛指点

arben

再问，请牛牛帮忙解释一下我楼上的提问。

EASYSUMMER

以下是引用携隐在2005-6-6 11:16:00的发言：

MUST BE TRUE题，如果文章存在推理过程，则找推理起点，从推理起点列出整个推理链，然后拿推理链里面的每项去对应找答案。－－from lawyer《考试时如何做逻辑题》

列出推理链后，只要不是推理链中的项，全是无关选项。

本题推理链：限制降低－》律师做广告增加－》降低费用－》降低全民cost

对于携隐的这个推理链，我怎么觉得只有标红的部分才可以由原文推出呢？而中间的两项实际上是 根据“ 有限制时 作广告的 收费少 ”推出的，实际上是你的假设呀！～～～～所以我不理解这个链 应该怎么解释？？

另外，实际上OG的解释恰好印证了lawyer一个理论“conclude题目答案有时比较晦涩，解题方法反而接近于assumption。因为assumption是原文成立的必要条件，也就是说原文成立assumption必然成立；而conclusion正是要一个原文成立使得结论成立的答案。同时assumption可以用取非weaken来论证答案的正确性，这点在conclusion题目同样适用。”

以下是OG对错误选项的取非，结果是 仍然可能成立，所以不是 ASSUMPTION
"

A does not follow from the stated information since it is still possible that no lawyers would raise their fees. B does not follow from the stated information since it is still possible that there would be no increase in the number of consumers using legal services. D does not follow the stated information since it is still possible that none of the lawyers who do not advertise would decide to lower their prices. E does not follow the stated information since it is still possible that few lawyers would advertise their legal services."

上面说的只是我试图印证自己想法的过程，请NN们和携隐 指导

多谢！！！！！

EASYSUMMER

本题推理链：限制降低－》律师做广告增加－》降低费用－》降低全民cost

这个问题明白了，不好意思，忘了原题第一句话了。。

继续讨论。。

思谦

11.

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.

If the statements in the passage 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 service.

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.

11.

The supposition in c involves reducing by one the number of restrictions on the advertising of legal services. Any such reduction will, if the stated correlation exists, be accompanied by an increase in the number of lawyers advertising their services, as C predicts. Therefore, C is the best answer.

A does not follow from the stated information since it is still possible that no lawyers would raise their fees. B does not follow from the stated information since it is still possible that there would be no increase in the number of consumers using legal services. D does not follow the stated information since it is still possible that none of the lawyers who do not advertise would decide to lower their prices. E does not follow the stated information since it is still possible that few lawyers would advertise their legal services.

题目是说做广告的律师收费低。D说是如果更多的律师做广告降低了费用，那么不做广告的律师会降低费用，也就是说如果做广告的律师不降低费用，那么不做广告的律师会也就不会降低费用，即不做广告的律师有不降低费用的可能。文中只是说会有更多的律师做广告，并没有说更多的律师做广告会降低费用，所以文中内容真，D不一定真，是这样理解og对D的解释吗？请指教。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-7-31 21:16:44编辑过]

ethyl

也就是说如果没有做广告的律师降低费用，那么不做广告的律师会也就不会降低费用

这句没看懂。

但是MM整体的推理是正确的。

文中只说去掉限制，消费者人均成本会降低。这其实包含很多种情况，可能做广告的降低费用，不做广告的都不降低费用，但是做广告的律师是增多了，即降低费用的律师增多了；即使不做广告的律师都不降低费用仍有可能消费者的人均成本会降低。