这类题从什么地方下手？

samgxs

Investigator: XYZ Coins has misled its clients by promoting some coins as “Extremely rare” when in fact those coins are relatively common and readily available.
XYZ agent: That is ridiculous. XYZ Coins is one of the largest coin  dealers in the world. We authenticated the coins we sell through a nationally recognized firm and operate a licensed coin dealership.

The XYZ agent’s reply is most vulnerable to the criticism that it

A: exaggerates the investigator’s claims in order to make them appear absurd
B: accuses the investigator of bias but presents no evidence to support that accusation
C: fails to establish that other coin dealers do not also authenticate the coins those dealers sell also authenticate the coins those dealers sell
D: lists strengths of XYZ Coins while failing to address the investigator’s charge
E: provides no definition for the inherently vague phrase “extremely rare”.

Louisa_xy

这种两人对话的题，我常做错。积累的一点经验：先概括每个人的论点，各自的论证方法，这样，逻辑错误或者第二个人用的 argumentive strategy就明显了。

比如说这道题，第一个人说：XYZ Coins把一些普通的coins说成是extremely rare是在误导客户。第二人列出了XYZ Coins的背景，但并没有就第一个人的观点说那些"extremely rare" coins如何如何。
我想是选D。

一个麻烦点的方法：把这类题收集一些，分析总结

noyou

我觉得也是D， XYZ没有针对Investigator的点子上说，茬题了。

nicexiaoye

我徘徊在B和D之间。why not B?

samgxs

答案是D，但是这类题我总感觉错的机会要大得多