ChaseDream

标题: 新PREP10 [打印本页]

作者: kitebird 时间: 2007-5-17 00:43
标题: 新PREP10

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.

(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.

(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

没理解题目说什么。我的误解就不罗嗦了，请过路的给个正确的解释

作者: sunnyswallow 时间: 2007-5-17 10:19

J观点:在C城市所有的vedio rental outlets租赁数量下降,原因是新开了vedioroma,它既租赁又出售

B观点:vedioroma其实只卖出了4000, 远远小于损失的10000套, 所以不是由于新店开张造成的

题目要求weakenB的观点,而选项E恰好说明,卖出去的堞还有后续影响,本来租碟的人都跑去找买碟的人了

E恰好说明,卖出去的堞还有后续影响,本来租碟的人都跑去找买碟的人了

作者: MissNewMe 时间: 2007-5-30 10:47

还是不明白！~~~~~~我也错了，我选了Ａ，我还觉得蛮有道理的呢。。。

问weaken Brad, 实际上就是要support Jennifer啊. 为什么A不可以呢!~~超级郁闷!!

求助啊!!~~~

作者: MissNewMe 时间: 2007-5-30 10:50

唉~~~~我完了, 我越看E越不对啊~~~~感觉一点关系都没有!~~~~~

多谢帮忙讲解的各位朋友!!~~~~~

作者: mimixiaxia 时间: 2007-9-2 19:36

作者: mimixiaxia 时间: 2007-9-2 19:49
我模考的时候也错选A
看结论:in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.我觉得租碟已经被考虑进去了,J主要强调的是除了租碟外,新店还卖的很便宜.然后

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.
B攻击J时是针对卖碟这一行为
所以E更有道理,买了碟的人还把碟租出去,归根到底还是新店卖碟这一行为造成的

作者: Whitney 时间: 2007-9-3 02:53
(E) is the right one.
For MissNewMe, weaken Brad ≠ support Jennifer. One can weaken Brad's argument by pointing out the logical flaw is Brad's argument. In a situation, Both Jenn and Brad are wrong.

In Brad's argument, he assumed that One purchase of video = One rentals; (E) attcked this assumption. Similarly, we can weaken his assumption by suggesting that "Many peoples who usually watch the same video several times a years decided to buy them instead."

作者: buda 时间: 2008-5-8 09:33

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

J说Video renta1994比1993少了10,000，主要原因是Videorama出现，它不但租借，还便宜的售卖

B反驳说，一定还有其他的原因，因为Video renta1994比1993少了10,000，但是Videorama只卖了4,000。

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

注意，要反驳B对J的反驳。B的论断是还有其他的原因，要反驳也就是说没有其他的原因了，就是因为Videorama

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.

只说Videorama租的比卖的多不能说明租的加卖的超过10000，如果不超过还是说明有其他原因。模棱两可

(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.

文章说Video rental outlets together少卖了10000，因此和新加入的个体无关，并且和B的论断无关

对B的反驳无效，只能说明应该租的更多才对，也只能说明更加有其他的原因导致租的少

(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.

和人们买的原因无关，无法削弱B

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

正确，因为Videorama，人们买，而买的人又转租给别人，使得别人不再从Video rental outlets租借，因此租的少了，起始原因还是Videorama

作者: jean1280 时间: 2009-5-13 14:03
up

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)