gwd1-3

[vivid]

A product that represents a clear technological advance over competing products can generally command a high price. Because technological advances tend to be quickly surpassed and companies want to make large profits while they still can, many companies charge the greatest price the market will bear when they have such a product. But large profits on the mew product will give competitors a strong incentive to quickly match the mew product’s capabilities. Consequently, the strategy to maximize overall profit from a new product is to charge less than the greatest possible price.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A.The first is an assumption that forms the basis for a course of action that the argument criticizes; the second presents the course of action endorsed by the argument.
B.The first is a consideration raised to explain the appeal of a certain strategy; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the wisdom of adopting that strategy.
C.The first is an assumption that has been used to justify a certain strategy; the second is a consideration that is used to cast doubt on that assumption.
D.The first is a consideration raised in support of a strategy the argument endorses; the second presents grounds in support of that consideration.
E.The first is a consideration raised to show that adopting a certain strategy is unlikely to achieve the intended effect; the second is presented to explain the appeal of that strategy.
答案是B
我分不出B跟C哪個是對的
拜託高手回答 謝謝

[micht]

A product that represents a clear technological advance over competing products can generally command a high price. Because technological advances tend to be quickly surpassed and companies want to make large profits while they still can, many companies charge the greatest price the market will bear when they have such a product. But large profits on the mew product will give competitors a strong incentive to quickly match the mew product’s capabilities. Consequently, the strategy to maximize overall profit from a new product is to charge less than the greatest possible price..

C.The first is an assumption that has been used to justify a certain strategy; the second is a consideration that is used to cast doubt on that assumption

不是高手但我仍想回答 :-$

如果說 first boldface 是 assumption的話; 2nd boldface 在質疑 first boldface所說的assumption嗎?
[否定它則 technological advances CANNOT quickly surpassed 可能沒有technological advances surpass的現象 ]

但是2nd boldface
large profits on the mew product will give competitors a strong incentive to quickly match the mew product’s capabilities
激發對手和自己較勁 做出一樣品質高等的產品

這和 上面藍色相反
他們是會suprpassed 不斷不斷要超越對手...爭取更多的profit..


我的想法..... i12

[游客]

Good job.

[vivid]

感謝高手的回答
駑鈍的我
看了兩天終於看懂 豁然開朗

呼 看來bold face真的是我的罩門
請問大家有什麼可以克服bold face的方法嗎

[agk99]

去資料庫區下載bold face的題組吧
我記得有一份九題BF的

[VK]

不知道大家看bold face是不是重點都在連接詞上
我是過幾題 可以用但是煽到最後剩2-3個選項時就當機在那
這一題 because but 就可以解決掉其他選項了
這樣一來 bf題不知有否通則 或是一切銬閱讀

[Behemoth]

只靠連接詞來做我認為太冒險

還是乖乖靠閱讀看完整題再作答吧

[liwuu]

同意B大,我認為BF有時候做題感覺就有如SC...語意為上!!

[vantreal]

23. (28303-!-item-!-188;#058&003943)

A product that represents a clear technological advance over competing products can generally command a high price. Because technological advances tend to be quickly surpassed and companies want to make large profits while they still can, many companies charge the maximum possible price for such a product. But large profits on the new product will give competitors a strong incentive to quickly match the new product's capabilities. Consequently, the strategy to maximize overall profit from a new product is to charge less than the greatest possible price.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a consideration that has been raised to argue that a certain strategy is counterproductive; the second presents that strategy.
(B) The first is a consideration raised to support the strategy that the argument recommends; the second presents that strategy.
(C) The first is a consideration raised to explain the appeal of a certain strategy; the second presents that strategy.
(D) The first is an assumption, rejected by the argument, that has been used to justify a course of action; the second presents that course of action.
(E) The first is a consideration that has been used to justify pursuing a goal that the argument rejects; the second presents a course of action that has been adopted in pursuit of that goal.


(A) out: The first is a consideration that has been raised to argue that a certain strategy is counterproductive
=> 這個比較像在說第1個BF的下一句

(B) out: The first is a consideration raised to support the strategy that the argument recommends
=> 沒有, 因為strategy recommend是less than the greatest price.

(C) The first is a consideration raised to explain the appeal of a certain strategy; the second presents that strategy.
我知道第二個BF是對的, 可是我不太確定為什麼第一個BF(greatest price)和第二個BF (< greatest price)講的是相對的strategy.

(D) The first is an assumption, rejected by the argument, that has been used to justify a course of action; the second presents that course of action.

(E) The first is a consideration that has been used to justify pursuing a goal that the argument rejects
=> argument did not reject this goal

請大家解說吧~~

[lucyyeh]

PP這一題我做的時候也覺得好像都挑不出答案來
仔細看我覺得似乎都是錯在一些小地方
先說C 對在哪好了, The first is a consideration raised to explain the appeal of a certain strategy; 這段應該沒有爭議
第二句就很奇怪，因為好像在這篇文章在講兩種策略，不過仔細看一下BF 第二段主詞不是the strategy嗎？ 這裡講到的the strategy就是前面的那個strategy了，
接著句型說the strategy ....is ......就是選項的present囉，這樣看起來C的意思應該是是對的。
既然C選對，第二句BF就是在presents strategy, D選 present that course of action就不能選了

以上是我推敲的結果，或許高手還有更快的方法，參考看看吧！

[dibert8]

覺得 BF 題: 1. 很繞舌, 2. 考在極細微的差異,甚至對單字的理解(我又不是美國人)

巨觀判斷: BF1 和 BF2 立場相反,結論站在 BF2 這邊,這還不足以解題,必需進入選項裡微觀的世界.
(A) 不是 course of action
(B) BF1 = consideration (條件),正確; strategy = to make large profits ..., many companies charge the greatest price, 過關; BF2 = consideration (條件),正確; strategy 不明智,是吧!
(C) 錯在 cast doubt on that assumption: BF1 的說法本身並沒有錯, BF2 並不在否定 BF1 的說法
(D) 立場錯誤 (巨觀法,只能做到這裡. i.e. 排除這樣的選項,其餘就莫法度了,這是 BF 題令人困擾的地方)
(E) BF2 立場錯誤

[dibert8]

23. (28303-!-item-!-188;#058&003943)

A product that represents a clear technological advance over competing products can generally command a high price. Because technological advances tend to be quickly surpassed and companies want to make large profits while they still can, many companies charge the maximum possible price for such a product. But large profits on the new product will give competitors a strong incentive to quickly match the new product's capabilities. Consequently, the strategy to maximize overall profit from a new product is to charge less than the greatest possible price.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a consideration that has been raised to argue that a certain strategy is counterproductive; the second presents that strategy.
(B) The first is a consideration raised to support the strategy that the argument recommends; the second presents that strategy.
(C) The first is a consideration raised to explain the appeal of a certain strategy; the second presents that strategy.
(D) The first is an assumption, rejected by the argument, that has been used to justify a course of action; the second presents that course of action.
(E) The first is a consideration that has been used to justify pursuing a goal that the argument rejects; the second presents a course of action that has been adopted in pursuit of that goal.

PP 這題頗難選.
首先看立場: BF1 =/= BF2
(A) 說 BF2 是不良策略,文章裡 BF2 應該是較佳策略
(B) 說 BF1 支持 BF2, 不對了 (BF1 =/= BF2)
(C) BF1 = consideration , 對應的 strategy = charge the maximum possible price; BF2 對應的 strategy = charge less than the greatest possible price 這裡我就不懂為何這個選項是對的?
(D) argument = BF2, BF2 rejects BF1 聽起來 OK, 對應的 action = charge the maximum possible price; 但是說 BF2 = BF1 支持的那個 action 就不對了
(E) goal = make large profit, argument = BF2, BF2 並沒有反對 goal
這一題我實在無法自圓其說! (C)? why?

[dibert8]

看懂了! PP 這題真狡猾,原來 BF1 一大團黑字要視為整體,由於這一整團黑字產生了 BF2 裡的策略.
(C) 用 explain 這個字把我給誤導了,以為 BF1 要支持 BF2. 只嘆咱們學理工的沒這素養,黑白之間還可以 explain! 過了 (B) 這關,看到 (C) 很快就把它刪掉了;原來換了動詞就讓世界轉了彎!

[auguding]

Dibert~能麻煩你解釋清楚一點嗎?
我還是不懂ㄟ~~如你之前所說~
題目中BF1與BF2不應該是2種STRATEGY嗎?
一個為支持最高的價錢~利一個應該是less than最高的價錢
WHY可以把BF1說成explain BF2呢?

[dibert8]

PP23 前半段裡需把 BF1 那一大團黑字視為整體,後半段從 But 開始,因 BF1 提出反駁,並且給了另一個 strategy (BF2).因為 BF1 而產生 BF2 的想法, i.e. BF1 建構了提出 BF2 的原因,所以說 BF1 解釋(為何提出) BF2 這個 strategy.