BF题
[font=Times New Roman]Consumer advocate[/font][font=宋体]：[/font][font=Times New Roman]It is generally true[/font][font=宋体]，[/font][font=Times New Roman]at least in this state[/font][font=宋体]，[/font][font=Times New Roman]that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise[/font][font=宋体]．[/font][u][b][font=Times New Roman]It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated[/font][font=宋体]，[/font][font=Times New Roman]the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence[/font][font=宋体]．[/font][/b][/u][font=Times New Roman][i][b]However[/b][/i], eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ legal costs[/font][font=宋体]．[/font][b][font=Times New Roman]Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements[/font][/b][b][font=宋体]，[/font][font=Times New Roman]many lawyers who now advertise would Increase their fees.[/font][/b][font=Times New Roman]
In the consumer advocate's argument[font=宋体]，[/font]the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]ANS:
(C)
The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts w[font=宋体]川[/font]not hold in [/font][b]the case at issue[/b][font=宋体][font=Times New Roman]；[/font]the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction[font=宋体]。[/font]
[font=宋体]the case at issue 指的是什么啊？[/font]
[font=宋体]题目让我粘的乱七八糟 见笑::z2 [/font]
[font=宋体]答题者受累:loveliness: [/font]
[/font]
[[i] 本帖最后由 Rhine-3- 于 2008-7-22 19:20 编辑 [/i]] 我觉得吧，那是in the case和at issue, 这么分开的。。。 in the case at issue 就是“当前讨论的问题”。 哦~指的是consumer advocate的main point吗？
那<C>中的predict指的是什么？也是main point？
怪我开始没说明白：
OG的Reasoning ：
It is necessary to understand the consumer advocate’s main point: if lawyers are not required to specify fees in advertisements, consumers’ legal costs are likely to rise. [b]The first boldface[/b] sentence shows the cause-and-effect relation of lawyers’ ads and falling consumer costs, [b]a relation[/b] the advocate predicts will not continue[b] in the current case[/b]. The second boldface sentence explains why that relation will change.
我的想法是
"in the current case"指的是BF1（第一处黑体字）
选项中的predict=main point=[b]HOWEVER[/b]后面的"eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost cerainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ legal costs"
a relation=就是HOwEVER后面的
对不对？
太乱了~！
答题者受累~!
[[i] 本帖最后由 Rhine-3- 于 2008-7-22 19:19 编辑 [/i]] Case 不是指其中一句或是要点，而是指整个讨论。
Relation 在这里不能单独拿出来看的，要和前面一同理解：cause-and-effect relation，就说律师广告与收费下降的关系。However 后面的不是这个 relation，而是 consumer advocate 对这个 relation 的质疑。
页:
[1]