Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?ffice
ffice" />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 nondiscount 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?fficeffice" />
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.
题目后半部和前半部分有什么联系都不太明白 ? 参考答案 B , WHY ?
2
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.
In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.
C The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.
E The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.
参考答案 C
由于是从朋友那里抄来的,选项不太全,请多包涵.
大家讨论讨论,NN解答解答. 
Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were(Phenomenon and question). Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere (Evidence-Method). After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur.(Evidence1) The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur(Evidence2). Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer(Evidence3), it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up(Conclusion).fficeffice" />
The combination of Evidence1, evidence2 and evidence creates a principle that explains the method in detail to the conclusion.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |