※ 引述《Maplered (◎ 新生活运动 ◎)》之铭言： : 想请教大家这题的解题逻辑 : 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. 原文恕删 原题目指称 Kitchen 杂志想要授权给某家厨具商品 (a line of cookware)，而 根据一番研究之後，最後断定，如此授权既可以收取授权费用，也不会危及该杂 志的其他收入 (Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.) 问题是假设为何？ 根据现今假设题目清一色的「反驳的反驳」法，来看答案 (C) 的说法： C. Makers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product. 先将 not 略去不看，答案 (C) 成为 「众家餐具制造商认为 Kitchen 杂志做为广告媒介的吸引力降低了，因为该杂 志的名字会让人联想到另一项竞争商品。」 如此，就会使其他厨具商不愿来 Kitchen 杂志上刊登广告，因而损害了杂志的 广告收入。这样就会以「复因」方式反驳原结论的 without endangering its other revenues 部分。 最後，将 not 放回原答案，则就成为「反驳的反驳」而为正确的假设。 以上，供参考。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 59.115.149.22