救命：0g 205

weiyu

以下是引用zcx在2004-4-3 8:03:00的发言：
不好意思，weiyu gg, 我的逻辑刚开始，主要是凭意思做题的，但我不明白你的充分条件和必要条件在做题是有什么帮助？如果很重要，我从那里可以得到这些知识？我一直找不到有关专门一点的书

意思固然重要，能解决75%以上的选项，但是逻辑最重要的是搞懂前提和结论，即前提-->结论，这就是充分必要关系．

philikittist

205一定要注意到：however前后讨论的不是一个事物：前面是经验泛泛的pattern，后面是一个具体的问题（并且这个具体问题不适用这个pattern）

所以，不能说however前面的部分是反对结论，如果真是反对ca的结论的话，ca就该说它是错的，而不会说it is true这类的话。已经说了it is true,，无论后面怎么转折，也不能否定它。（ 我喜欢你，但不能借你钱。－－－转折关系不能否定我喜欢你）

og解释：this time the pattern will be different. 没说the pattern above is wrong。

所以however前后都是ca认同的。结论相反是因为研究对象不同。

however前：指出一种泛泛的pattern－－限制减少，成本降低（用generally和完成时表达这是经验的、总体化的、并非涵盖所有情况的pattern）

however后：指出in the case at issue(也就是：取消specify fee的限制的问题上），the pattern will not hold（成本会升高）。（用would表达虚拟）

C正好表达了两段粗体字的作用：B说（the pattern）will be repeated in the case at issue，正好说反了。

rattledrum

以下是引用weiyu在2004-4-2 15:30:00的发言：
Consumer advocate: it is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise(条件1). It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence(条件2). However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs(结论). Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees(条件3+条件4)
        
条件1+条件2-->非结论
        
条件3+条件4-->结论
        
B说:第1部分指明了一个消费倡议者争论的因果关系,(will be repeated in the case at issue) 并认为这个因果关系支持了结论;第2部分指出了一种该因果关系不成立的情况.
        
实际上第1部分没有支持结论, 而是反对结论.
        
个人意见, 欢迎指正
    

好强，解释得很清楚！