[讨论]feifei-6

with二

6. Sales manager: Last year the total number of meals sold in our company restaurants was much higher than it was the year before. Obviously consumers find our meals desirable.

Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants---the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before---demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the accountant’s argument?

A.        The company’s restaurants last year dropped from their menus most of the new dishes that had been introduced the year before.

B.        Prior to last year there was an overall downward trend in the company’s sales.

C.        Those of the company’s restaurants that did increase their sales last year did not offer large discounts on prices to attract customers.

D.       Sales of the company’s most expensive meal contributed little to the overall two-year sales increase.

E.        Most of the company’s restaurants that were in operation throughout both last year and the year before are located in areas where residents experienced a severe overall decline in income last year.

The answer is E, but I think it's C.

Answer

E: we can't find any connection between the income decline and the restaurant sales from the above paragraph, even though most people may agree that the more income, the more people go to restaurants.

Answer C

means the restaurants that didnot increase their sales last year offered large discounts on prices to attract customers.


(attachment: feifei' s explanation

A. Reason to explain why the sale of each sample restaurant decreased last year. （无关）

B. 总公司前年的下降不能否定去年的下降，也不能支持。（无关）

C. 那些去年销量不降反增的公司是因为没有降价太多。不降反增的公司与下降的公司是两个不同的集合，描述对象不正确。如果我们推出那些下降的公司是因为降价太多，也只能是给出一个原因来解释为什么下降。　（无关）

D. 公司最贵的招牌菜并没有给公司带来销售的增加。也属于一个解释，解释为什么总量会下降。但与Accountant 的观点并没有直接的联系。既没有针对描述对象：2-year-history restaurant，也没有削弱论据与结论之间的必然联系。

E. 答案。针对描述对象：2-year-history restaurant，他因：a severe overall decline in income)

with二

谢谢大家，悟了悟了

foreverluke

个人观点： 他因是重点！ 题目相当于文weaken，所以需要weaken前提，即：sales下降导致顾客不desire
E说的是真正的原因是overall的income下降导致顾客不desire

citidandan

B：前年sale的下降不能推出去年还是下降啊

with二

困惑依旧！！对待原则的原则大家彼此认识相同，但运用起来总有偏颇。

暂且不说原则的问题吧。

总觉得(B)太#答案了，尽管表面上看似有范围不一致的问题，但进一步分析符

合逻辑，为啥不对呢？

困惑呀！有哪位XDJM能勇敢地跳出来支持我一下？

citidandan

E：收入少，必然引起大家的消费减少

大家所说的原则LZ不要机械的去掌握，原则里说，紧随文章的信息是没错的。

有很多的weaken题是需要用常识的，比如：地球是圆的，即使题目不告诉你你

也不能认为地球是方的。再比如，经济萧条了，大家生活都拮据了，即使题目

没说，你也不能说大家还过着吃一碗倒一碗的奢侈生活。再比如，供求关系与

价格，供应增加了，价格下降；这类的公理，自然定理是ETS明确说过，其认为，

参加GMAT考试的人具备这样的基本的常识的。

因此，原则是没错的，但是有些东西是必然的，ETS认为我们都不知道，儿我们

却要说你ETS没告诉我，所以我不知道。

原则在GMAT考试种有很重要的地位，很多题目信息外的信息不能加入题目的推

理中，但是一些基本的常识运用于GMAT中是比比皆是。傻子原则是不能乱想，

一些常识是指一些公认的公理，自然定理，等。这些东西还是要掌握的。

with二

谢谢解释，但仍有疑问：（C）说所有收入增加的餐馆都没打折，说明所有收入没有增加的餐馆有打折（M） 。

正如斑竹所提示，accountor的范围是 所有去年和前年开业的餐馆。因为它们的收入都有减少，所以全部落在（M）的范围内。也就是说 没有盈利的原因是因为打折而不是accountor所说。正确。

从（E）要得出所要结论还缺少条件。题中没有说明收入减少和到餐馆就餐有任何关系，做GMAT的题最重要的就是要根据文中给定的条件而不是所谓的常识。举个极端的例子：因为收入减少，许多人认为攒钱或投资的潜力不大，不如省下时间学学GMAT之类，所以不在家中开火导致去餐馆消费增加。

不知意下如何？

youngerlee

这题有过讨论

范围的不同

manager得出结论的范围是：所有的餐馆

accountor得出结论的范围是：所有去年和前年开业的餐馆

E针对accountor的范围，说出该范围的参观开业的地方，那些人的收入不好。