求解OG104

hebby0513

看了一个题型分类的解释还是不太懂，打折不打折的搞不清楚，求大牛们解答啊！！

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 years since 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 weakens the argument?
(A) Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.
(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
(D) Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.
(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

zhengqingku

我觉得这是个三重关系，首先，略带过说Goreville会被Splendless打倒，但是Splendless好景不会长，因为5年内Colson推出的折扣战略会将其余的竞争对手打倒，即包括Splendless。 而此题就是直接weaken它预测的结果，未来5年在Colson开的stores会增多，那就是说它根本不可能打倒竞争对手。重点关注结论。

hz032478

同求此题，有没有NN帮分析下这道题说的什么啊？
我看了好几遍，读来读去读不懂，也理不清里面的关系
到底他的argument是什么啊？
跪求。。。

robinyue

和大家讨论一下

看到这道题，上周早上研究了好一阵子，算是有点想通了。
思路摆出来希望有经过的NN拍砖~~我对逻辑也表示很头大！
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 years since 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.
虽然有人预期G城市中心商区的一些discount stores会在五年内关门大吉（因为斗不过S这个discount store），但是那些店关门后场地不会空着，也就是有新的店会开啦！
fact1：预期 S会杀掉一些店，会有新店开。
下面一句blah原因了：在这个商区，五年来C（a non-discount department store）的出现也使得很多store大吉，那些大吉的店都会被新的店取代（a new store has opened at the location of every store）到这里有点晕了哦！
fact2：曾经 C杀掉一些店，后来又新店开。
key：两句话的联系是-有店大吉了，又有新店开张；原文用fact1支持fact2。
所以这个argument就是:因为被C杀掉的店挂了后，有新店上了；所以被S杀掉的店挂后，也会有新店上。
有木有作文里的false analogy和omnipresent（这两天作文好头大，扯远了。）
找出两个fact的dissimilarity，就能证明fact1不能推出fact1，那就weaken了这个argument；下面来找茬…
A. S开了后人们都不爱C，去爱S了---irrelevant 杀掉
B. C之后新开的店都是discount store---看到discount 提到商店类型 先留着
C. 此商区比起过去有了很多店---就说很多店，太不具体了，不怎么着边啊
D. G地人口会增多---irrelevant 杀掉
E. 扯到types of merchandise了---杀掉
重新想想B，过去新开的店都是discount店，同时C是nondiscount department store；
现在S是discount department store；
总的来：过去有新的discount store重新对抗C这个nondiscount；而现在面对一个S discount，新的discount store们还有勇气吗~~~默默地被weakened了。
抱歉我废话有点多，一道题要这样去想估计考完也会崩溃。十六号要上战场了，现在遇到这种题目还是整个人都绕晕了，还是觉得很多大牛的建议很受用：排除irrelevant
大家又要加油吖！

hz032478

谢谢你。。
我算是慢慢通了。。

philipyu1025

这道题的argument就是说SL导致竞争者关门后会出现和G导致的竞争者关门一致的结果，会有新店替代。
但是G是折扣打败了非折扣店，为了赢得竞争，新开的店都是折扣店，而SL开门的时候，b选项是已经有很多折扣店了，那么环境已经不同了，weaken

luke-216

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 years since 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.
顶楼上，分析的非常好
这道题的思路是，ARGUMENT做了一个类比：Colson's，一个非折扣店，打败了他的竞争对手但是很快就有一家新的店铺填补了那些被干掉的店铺的位置。所以推出来，即使SL打败了G，那些地方也不会空着。这就是类比
削弱呢，就是切断联系，找一个这两个不能比较的地方。那么选项B，就完美的诠释了。因为C打败的是非折扣店，填补位置的是折扣店；而对于G，情况就跟它不一样，也就不能涌过来类比了