OG-205中的题

gsluo

OG NO。205.
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. 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 conxumers have declines in consequence. Howerver, eliminating the statE requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly icrease rather than further reduce consumer's legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangments, many lawyeres who now advertise would increase their fees.
  In the consumer advocate's argument ,the two potions in boldface play which of the following roles?
a. The first is a generalizaion that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
b. Ther first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
c. The first is a pattern of cause and effect taht the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue;the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
d. The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in supportof a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
e. The first acknowledges a considerration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that positon.
answer: c

请教：C中第一个黑体所指的PREDICTION 和第二个黑体的PREDICTION 是同一个吗？
我的观点：前一个黑体的PREDICTION是“广告限制取消，打官司的成本会低”；而第二个是“如果没有明确价格，官司成本会上升” 。由此答案应该是B而非C。困惑。。。ING

yinlixiao

我也是第一次不理解 "the case at issue" ，所以选了B, 而不是C.
虽然楼上说了很多对这个题目不同的理解，但是我觉得关键还是理解"the case at issue"。
我返回去看了OG的解释，里面说了，“The first BOLDFACE sentence shows the cause-and-effect relations of ..., a relation the advocate predicts will not continue in the current case.”
从这句解释中我们可以看出，OG认为“the current case" 指的是"eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services..."
如果明白了"the case at issue"指的是什么,就这里区别出B选项和C选项了。
这里我认为，"the case at issue"指的是"eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services..."

gsluo

只好自己顶了！

ca3ltoys

is there    any NN going to answer it? Please explain it    in detail as clear as possible. Thanks.better

ca3ltoys

why does nobody answer it???

ca3ltoys

up again

mikecat

肯定是C呀！！因为选项里面所说的prediction是指Howerver, eliminating the statE requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly icrease rather than further reduce consumer's legal costs.所以应该是那种cause and effect的模式不会在这个case里面发生。

snowflower

答案是C啊，因为第一个boldface是说预期价格限制取消，价格下降，结果consumer的cost下降。但是这个预期用的是一个让步语气，也就是说并非是真的。第二个boldface说如果取消价格限制，consumer的cost会上升，实际上这个prediction指的是consumer advocate的第三句话，即HOWEVER后面的那个PREDICTION。因为开始的两句话都是让步语气，所以并非是这个CONSUMER ADVOCATE真正的PREDICTION，而HOWEVER后的才是他真正的预期。所以第二个BLODFACE是支持这个PREDICTION的。

抛砖引玉啊

tulipmontreal

雪花分析的正确!

清风剑

与Snowflower商榷：

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. 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 conxumers have declined in consequence.

此两句是已存在之事实，however后是prediction. Prediction 与第一个Boldface部分相背.其余同意snowflower.

snowflower

right, they are the truth, absolutely.  but they are not the advocate's prediction.  and this question's focus is the advicate's prediction not the truth.