Re: [語文] CR-PP2-78
※ 引述《Maplered (◎ 新生活運動 ◎)》之銘言:
: 想請教大家這題的解題邏輯
: Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of
: cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products
: involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers,
: the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reductions in
: circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the
: cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in
: Kitchen. Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without
: endangering its other revenues.
: The argument above assumes which of the following?
: A. No other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the
: Kitchen name.
: B. Kitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other
: than the line of cookware.
: C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive
: advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with
: a competing product.
: D. Consumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be
: attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.
: E. Kitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.
原文恕刪
原題目指稱 Kitchen 雜誌想要授權給某家廚具商品 (a line of cookware),而
根據一番研究之後,最後斷定,如此授權既可以收取授權費用,也不會危及該雜
誌的其他收入 (Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without
endangering its other revenues.)
問題是假設為何?
根據現今假設題目清一色的「反駁的反駁」法,來看答案 (C) 的說法:
C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive
advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with
a competing product.
先將 not 略去不看,答案 (C) 成為
「眾家餐具製造商認為 Kitchen 雜誌做為廣告媒介的吸引力降低了,因為該雜
誌的名字會讓人聯想到另一項競爭商品。」
如此,就會使其他廚具商不願來 Kitchen 雜誌上刊登廣告,因而損害了雜誌的
廣告收入。這樣就會以「複因」方式反駁原結論的 without endangering its
other revenues 部分。
最後,將 not 放回原答案,則就成為「反駁的反駁」而為正確的假設。
以上,供參考。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.115.149.22
推
12/02 10:46, , 1F
12/02 10:46, 1F
→
12/02 14:18, , 2F
12/02 14:18, 2F
討論串 (同標題文章)