77. (30754-!-item-!-188;#058&005525)
Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?
Twenty percent of the stores in Morganville's downtown shopping district will fail within five years because they will be competing directly with the SaveMart discount department store newly opened in
A. the stores likely to be put out of business by direct competition from SaveMart are the downtown shopping district's anchor stores, on whose ability to draw shoppers many of the other downtown stores depend
B. the bus line that has long connected the downtown area of Morganville with East Morganville has a tradition of carrying shoppers who reside in
C. when the downtown shopping district has rebounded before, the business premises of a failed business were typically taken over by a business of the same kind as had been there before
D. SaveMart's business plan for the
E. it is conceivable that the downtown shopping district could shrink substantially without collapsing altogether
貌似是一道旧题，找了半天没找到
正确答案是A。。。原文貌似是说以前downtown的business，衰落过又恢复了。。现在开了家新店，又会有stores fail。但是这个结论不对，解释——-
不明白a 为什么对，我选的b
菜鸟的理解，不知道对不对：
原文的意思是说Morganville市中心20%的店都会在5年内完蛋，因为他们将与新开在Morganville东部的折扣店SaveMart直接竞争。
市中心的店以前也有过类似的衰落，但后来都反弹了。
但是却看不到这次衰落还会反弹的信心，因为_____________
A 因为这次因SaveMart的直接竞争而会受到冲击的商店都是市中心的主力店，其他店家都要靠这些主力店的能力来吸引客源。
连在原文后面很顺理成章，说明了这次不能反弹的原因。
B 连接Morganville市中心和东Morganville地区的商业链有着这样的惯例：居住在东Morganville地区的消费者会被吸引到Morganville市中心去消费
和原文的论点相反
C 以前市中心的商店业绩反弹的时候，那些失败的商店的经营场所会被原来那里就存在的其他类似商店所接管。
说的是以前反弹的原因，并不能支持本次无法反弹的论点
D SaveMart对于东Morganville地区商店的营销计划，如果存在的话，是在其他商店还存在的头5年内采用薄利多销的方法
这个。。和原文最没关系了
E 可以想象到，市中心的购物区可能会严重缩水，但不会整体崩溃。
貌似也无关。。。
个人观点，恳请大牛指点~~
我是看了别人解释，来谈谈自己的看法。
A的意思应该是说这次受打击的是商业区的核心店面，而on whose ability to draw shoppers many of the other downtown stores depend这句话的意思应该是商业区的许多其他店面都是依靠这些核心店面来吸引客源的。言下之意，以前倒下的可能是小店面，只要核心店在，那还是有客源的，所以能够rebound。但这次倒下的是核心店，他一旦关门，那些依靠他吸引客源的其他非核心店也就无法获得客源，也必然倒闭，所以无法rebound~~~
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |