OG12-104。。

puzzledog

这道题捣鼓了很久，看了很多NN的解释，都作茧自缚出不来。。最后耐心再看了下OG解释，突然明白了。

104.Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five yearssince the opening of Colson’s, a non-discount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakensthe argument?

(A)Many customers of Colson’s are expected to doless shopping there than they did before theSpendLess store opened.

(B)Increasingly, the stores that have opened in thecentral shopping district since Colson’s openedhave been discount stores

(C) At present, the central shopping district has asmany stores operating in it as it everhad.

(D) Over the course of the next five years, it isexpected that Goreville’s population will grow ata faster rate than it has for the past severaldecades.

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district selltypes of merchandise that are not available ateither SpendLess or Colson’s.

Case 1: Discount Store Spendless 会取代此地现存的 discount stores.
Case 2: 曾经，Non-discount Store Col 取代了此地的stores后，在倒闭店的原址上又出现了新店。

Conclusion: case 1 中也会出现倒闭后新建的店，重蹈case 2的覆辙。

Now come on, let's weaken!!

OG 认为的weaken也针对于 题目中作者自以为是的类比case 1&2上，so let's prove that the analogy by the author is wrong
也就是找case 1与case 2 在时过境迁后的不同！

case 2 中， Because Col is non-discount, so, discount stores就有市场需求了，所以后建的新店are discount stores.（否则怎么有市场?!）
OG ： If the stores that were driven out by Colson's were replaced mostly by discount stores, that suggests that the stores were replaced because of need

那么， 时过境迁，case 1 中现存的discount stores are replaced by Spendless后， 是不是还有同样的市场需求呢？
OG: .....stores were replaced because of a need that no longer exists after the opening of SpendLess.

B选项意思GMAC说的很隐晦，意思是Case 2中discount stores出现是因为相对non-discount Colson来说，有市场。
我们可推知 Case 1中SpendLess取代discount stores后已经没有discount stores的市场需求了，而且nondiscount的市场也被colson给填满了。

这道题说白了，就是  在Case 1 和 Case 2 中，对比某巨头淘汰小店后，是否都还有市场需求能让新店兴起。  明显，这道题Case 2中有， 而轮到Case 1时，已经没有need了。

willgoeu

托楼主的福，我也屁颠屁颠跑去再过了一次这个题目，搞懂了~
其实题目难在它置换了前提和结论的位置
premise：在以前被C淘汰的店的旧址上开了新店。
conclusion：现在被S淘汰的店的旧址也会开新店，不会空置太久。
要削弱结论，就是找它和premise里例子的不同点。
但是让我puzzle的是，难道店只有discount和non-discount两种咩……

puzzledog

我觉得 这道题key points is the market needs,   不过你得疑问关于是否只有这两种discount & non-discount， 你能举出个第三种吗？

saintaa

怎么说的那么复杂呢 我觉得很简单啊，这是一个现象解释文推理（由现象推出原因）
背景是：有家很NB的打折店开了 其它店虽然都关门了 但是会有新的店取代这个倒闭的店
logic：一个非打折店Colson’s 就取代饿这些倒闭的store-》因为Colson 无人能比
weaken：不是因为colson无人能比-》（否定逻辑链）-》开在Colson店周围的都是打折店，肯定比colson有竞争力

puzzledog

我觉得你说 '开在Colson店周围的都是打折店，肯定比colson有竞争力'这句话有点主观， discount店并非比colson有市场竞争力，关键看消费人群的市场需求。 很明显，这道题考点在于‘discount 和non-discount的市场需求都饱和了，所以case 2没可能再引领风骚...’

willgoeu

没有那么简单，而且我觉得这也不是现象解释文。

bobdog179

有道理的哈，有没有新的商家进驻看的是有没有市场需求，对于没有Spendless的时候市场有discount srore的需求，于是又discount 的小店能够进驻，很多年之后，Spendless进驻淘汰了前面的小店，此时市场饱和没有需求就没有店愿意进驻啦

wojiaodubing

题目难在它置换了前提和结论的位置
premise：在以前被C淘汰的店的旧址上开了新店。
conclusion：现在被S淘汰的店的旧址也会开新店，不会空置太久。

那么要weaken 这个结论。就要找他因

作者想类比的是 以前被C淘汰的店又开了新店。所以现在被S淘汰的店也会开

新店。
但是如果原来被C淘汰后开的新店跟C业务不重复。那么类比就不成立了。

puzzledog

如果原来被C淘汰后开的新店跟C业务不重复，那么类比就应该成立了吧？