OG-205中的题

vincent0330

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.

dont forget the "Consumer advocate: ". By quoting the speech of the advocate, we can say that the advocate admit and introduce those, " It is generally true........It is also true....",  in order to opposite the main argument. And this technique is generally called "concession". Therefore,  no matter what the advocate concesses may be true, or may be not, those quoted speech should refer to the prediction.

For example, some body say " Hay!! I am late because of the car accidence. It is true!! "

Maybe this is true, or maybe this guy tell a lie. But no matter what he said, as a whole, it's a prediction for the third party, which generally means the readers, like us.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-30 23:15:19编辑过]

cuihua

关键是如何理解第二个boldface

xionghuixh

The first boldface portion does present a pattern of cause and effect, and the
advocate’s prediction is that his time the pattern will be different.

his time 是不是有误?是不是这次的意思?

mba174

It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising oflegal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertisingtheir services has increased and legal costs to conxumers have declinesin consequence. -> This is a general phenominon, 'restrictions on the legal service'is not equal to 'the requirement to specify fees for specific services'as stated in the prediction. In other words, The past experiencedoesn't apply to the new issue here:

Howerver, eliminating the statE requirement thatlegal advertisements must specify fees for specific services wouldalmost certainly icrease rather than further reduce consumer's legalcosts.

That's why C says 'the case at issue', 'the case at issue' means 'legaladvertisements must specify fees for specific services', it's ONE kindof restrictions, but it won't reduce costs according to the advocate'spredict as shown in the causal and effect description in the 1st boldface.

Novena

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.

我对B选项本身的意思不太理解，OG的解释也太简略了，不知道哪位NN能帮我解释一下B的错误？

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-2-21 22:28:31编辑过]

springrain

我也不明白B的意思,大家帮帮我啊1

(B) The 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.

黑体字部分什么意思啊?帮我翻译一下呀!

windlake

期待nn解释ing

richard-ma

这题我彻底晕了。。。。。。

哪位NN能把所有的选项给翻译一下？

lindazhou

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。

既然consumer advocate的prediction是反对取消广告限制，那还是什么支持者呀。

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.
这两部分指的是同样的预测还是两个？

lindazhou

既然consumer advocate的prediction是反对取消广告限制，那还是什么支持者呀。

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.
这两部分指的是同样的预测还是两个？