※ 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