15. (25986-!-item-!-188;#058&002914)
Some airlines allegedly reduce fares on certain routes to a level at which they lose money, in order to drive competitors off those routes. However, this method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run. Once an airline successfully implements this method, any attempt to recoup the earlier losses by charging high fares on that route for an extended period would only provide competitors with a better opportunity to undercut the airline's fares.(B)
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by ，selling a product below cost.
(B) Airline executives generally believe that a company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge.
(C) As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable level.
(D) On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.
(E) When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly.
我选的是D，如果其他的航空公司都不再经营了，不也是对原文的削弱吗？
17. (26864-!-item-!-188;#058&003368)
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.(C)
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables
我选的D
难道是因为太简单了？555555
自己顶一下
mm这两道题文的非常好啊，其实这两道题妹妹的选项不能说错，但是没有正确选项来的好。
题目问得是most seriously weakens the argument？ 多体会一下这两个正确选项， ETS的思路阿。
建议第二题，lz从答案取非是非支持角度考虑，比如d取非并不能明显支持原文观点，说明还有欠缺。
这两题确实答案之间差别很小，考试的话，我多半也是做错。我也想知道怎样从更好的角度考虑思路比较清晰一些？
谢谢二位
四楼的MM，能把第二题解释详细些吗？我还是不太理解（太笨了），o(∩_∩)o...
谢谢二位
四楼的MM，能把第二题解释详细些吗？我还是不太理解（太笨了），o(∩_∩)o...
第二题你选d是理解反了：如果相信d，那么就不一定能得出利润增加的推断了。
而如果相信利润会增加，那么也就需要相信c，而c明显是一个潜在的弱点。所以选择c
我刚开始也选了D,看了答案后觉得C更好.D中只说,逗留时间短的人,花费更少,这个不足以说明profit会增加或减少,因为是时间更短(有可能导致餐厅翻台率上升),还是花费更少(导致就餐收入减少),没有可比性.而C中,如果到餐厅的人与题目中的假定的坐到stool台的人群的行为不一样的话,就削弱了结论了.
第二题, 我觉得楼主是不是没有把题目研究透彻,
题目说, 1. 饭店现在都是standard, 2. 有人想要坐tall+stools, 3. 坐stools待的时间没有standard长
结论, 把一些standard换成tall+stools会挣钱
题目问削弱
C, 想要坐stools的人, 其实是那些想要待久一些的人
文章推理思路是, 待的时间短->挣钱, 言下之意就是翻台率越高越挣钱
坐在stools->待的时间短, 所以, stools->挣钱
C选项就是说明, 坐在stools上的人, 推不出待定时间短, 所以削弱结论
其实这个题目就是把概念搞得比较绕, 文章说的说dinner坐在stools上待的时间短, 可是想要坐stools的那些顾客, 其实是为了看celebrity...不是一般意义上的dinner, 所以是待的比较长..
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |