ChaseDream
标题: OG 12 104 [打印本页]
作者: CD用户363773 时间: 2009-10-23 09:11
标题: OG 12 104
104. Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within fi ve 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 fi ve 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?
(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.
(D) Over the course of the next fi ve years, it is expected that Goreville’s population will grow at a faster rate
than it has for the past several decades.
(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either
SpendLess or Colson’s.
Argument Evaluation
Situation Due to competition from a recently opened SpendLess discount department store, discount
stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within fi ve years. But
those locations will not be vacant long, for new stores have replaced all those that closed
because of the opening fi ve years ago of a Colson’s nondiscount department store.
Reasoning Th e question is which option would most weaken the argument? Th e arguer infers that stores
that leave because of the SpendLess will be replaced in their locations by other stores
because that is what happened after the Colson’s department came in. Since the
reasoning relies on a presumed similarity between the two cases, any information that
brings to light a relevant dissimilarity would weaken the argument. If the stores that
were driven out by Colson’s were replaced mostly by discount stores, that suggests
that the stores were replaced because of a need that no longer exists after the opening
of SpendLess.
B为正确答案,我首先是passage就没弄明白,没看懂,哪位能帮忙解释一下吗?
不知道这几个商店到底是什么关系,是在同一个地区,还是把两个地区的商店做了个对比。
另外OG的解释也没弄明白。
作者: taozike 时间: 2009-10-23 11:31
我也是,顶一下!
作者: hebelogo 时间: 2009-10-23 15:37
我也是,那位高手解答一下
作者: ruin_bow 时间: 2009-10-23 16:12
这题的意思是,Goreville’s central shopping district将要因为a SpendLess discount department store的竞争而关闭,但是G所在的位置将不会长时间的空着。因为有这样一个例子, Colson’s周围每个因为C竞争而倒闭的店铺原址上都开了新的店铺。
题目的观点是G所在的位置不会长期空闲,然后举了C的例子来说明。Weaken最直接的方法就是削弱C情景和G情景之间的联系。
这题最阴险的地方是从题目中可以推出一个假设,就是discount store比nondiscount store更有竞争力。然后因为G的情况是和一个discount store竞争,而C的情况是和nondiscount store (C itself) 竞争。所以如果C附近的店铺能够存活是因为discount对nondiscount(C)带来的优势的话。那么C的案例就不能在G这里适用了,因为G情景下,竞争对手已经是discount store了。
个人观点,仅供参考,欢迎指教
这题真的很郁闷,要是在考场上我绝对做不出来。
作者: maggie_yume 时间: 2009-11-4 23:49
这道题我也纠结了很久,RUIN_BOW你的说法给了我一点启示,希望有其他牛人分享一下你们的看法。
作者: 童言无忌 时间: 2009-11-8 21:46
这道题我也感到很困惑,觉得ruin_bow同学的解释挺有道理的。
作者: jinwch 时间: 2009-11-9 01:08
OG后面的解释,就和ruin-bow类似.赞一个...如果单独看OG后面的解释是比较迷糊的.
作者: turn55 时间: 2009-11-9 21:39
说的很好 这题折磨我很久...
作者: amandafly 时间: 2009-11-13 11:47
标题: Locations stay vacant是肯定存在的,故weaken题目结论vacant will not exist for long
"Th e arguer infers that stores hat leave because of the SpendLess will be replaced in their locations by other stores because that is what happened after the Colson’s department came in. If the stores that were driven out by Colson’s were replaced mostly by discount stores, that suggests that the stores were replaced because of a need that no longer exists after the opening of SpendLess." 按文章逻辑推理:文章强调的是:a new store will open,since Colson`s opening,并且只有被Colson打击倒闭的店才replaces by new store,故因为the spendless竞争而close的店不会被replace;同时选项中指出一个现象,the increase of discount store since Colson`s open.但是在文中一开头就指出discount stores were replaced because of a need that no longer exists after the opening of SpendLess(如上面OG解释所示),故最终仍然有很多discount stores close,then the locations stay vacant;我们要关注题目真正想表达什么意思,从语法也能看出来.
作者: amandafly 时间: 2009-11-13 13:37
标题: 不需要理解它们之间是什么关系,你只需要顺着题目的说明推理就好了
如下:The spendless open in the shopping district-->discount stores close, sub conclusion the locations will not stay vacant for long & Colson open --> competitors close -->new store open
选项插入一个现象:Colson open in the shopping district --> incresasely(注意!是副词) open of discount stores & the spendless compete -->discount stores close & 注意!New store 只会在locations of Competitors of the Colson处open,而被the spendless 淘汰的店是不会replaced by new store的,故得出结论there are still locations staying vacant.
作者: amandafly 时间: 2009-11-13 13:43
标题: 解题方法,用后面结合前提进行推理,看结论是否有变即可
如有理解错误,欢迎拍砖,共同学习哈!
作者: shineall 时间: 2009-11-26 01:20
这题的意思是,Goreville’s central shopping district将要因为a SpendLess discount department store的竞争而关闭,但是G所在的位置将不会长时间的空着。因为有这样一个例子, Colson’s周围每个因为C竞争而倒闭的店铺原址上都开了新的店铺。
题目的观点是G所在的位置不会长期空闲,然后举了C的例子来说明。Weaken最直接的方法就是削弱C情景和G情景之间的联系。
这题最阴险的地方是从题目中可以推出一个假设,就是discount store比nondiscount store更有竞争力。然后因为G的情况是和一个discount store竞争,而C的情况是和nondiscount store (C itself) 竞争。所以如果C附近的店铺能够存活是因为discount对nondiscount(C)带来的优势的话。那么C的案例就不能在G这里适用了,因为G情景下,竞争对手已经是discount store了。
个人观点,仅供参考,欢迎指教
这题真的很郁闷,要是在考场上我绝对做不出来。
-- by 会员 ruin_bow (2009/10/23 16:12:00)
说的好。此题我上了spendless的档,把它当成一个否定词了。。。spendless discount理解成non-discount了,汗。。
作者: jinwch 时间: 2009-12-3 15:22
如果把题干翻译成中文,理清逻辑思路,这条题目就简单多了。
逻辑简图;A)Spendless discount department opend--->the discount stores in G closed. But, those locations will not be vacant for long.
Because, B) Colson's , a nondiscount department open --->the stores in the shopping district closed. but new stores open has opened
因此,要削弱A、B之间的联系,只要找出B中不适合A的地方。
选项B,要是C周边开起来的是打折店,(是完全可能的,相较于C是不打折店);但是就不能类比到A。因为A中讨论的本来就是打折店。就不一定能推导出会很快开出新店来。
作者: yuxiaokeer 时间: 2009-12-6 01:20
这题纠结了好长时间啊~赫赫~主要是在OG上解释的最后一句话~终于弄明白了~大家看一下我的翻译,赫赫~别见笑~希望不明白的同学可以找点思路
作者的假设是这两件事情之间有相似处,所以要削弱原结论就要找出它们间的不同处。如果因为C而倒闭的店都被折扣店而取代,那代表那些店被取代是由于一个需求(既对折扣店的需求),但这个需求在SL开业后就不再存在了(因为它可以满足人么对折扣店的需求)。所以不能从C的事推到SL的事上~
作者: efay 时间: 2010-1-29 23:54
太汗了这道题。。
1. 打折店们VS S打折店,打折店们被灭了以后会有新店来开
2. 店们(没说打折还是非打折)VS C非打折店,店们被灭了以后还会有新店(没说打折还是非打折)
怎么能有2推出1呢?
1包含2,2是1所述的情况一种,但是我觉得压根这道题就推不出来,因为S和C完全一个是打折店,一个是非打折店
怎么能WEAKEN 2到1的联系呢?
2和1不是一个类型的事儿,1包含不了2,
看B选项,店们被灭了再开都是打折店,而C是非打折店(必然打折店有优势),C不够强悍,斗不过打折店,而S本身就是大型打折店,小打折店们肯定斗不过S,就不会再来开了,所以WEAKEN了。
open to discuss~~
^_^
作者: sunny_book 时间: 2010-2-15 18:38
这道题也让我头疼。实在没啥逻辑思维的人只好先彻底翻译成中文,再说。
题目:由于近期在Goreville中心商业区开张的Spendless折扣百货店导致的激烈竞争,该区的许多打折商店很可能在五年内关闭。尽管如此,关闭的店址将不会长期闲置。 COLSON商店是一家非折扣百货店,在它开业五年内,有一家商店开张了,正建在因无法与COLSON竞争而倒闭的某店原址之上。
选项:
A。在Spendless店开门后,COLSON商店的顾客将减少在该店购物的次数。
B,在COLSON商店开业以后,越来越多的折扣店在该地区开张。
C,目前,在该区营业中的商店数和从前一样多。
D,在下一个五年,该区人口将比过去二十年增长的更快。
E,该区的很多商店出售的商品是COLSON和Spendless店里没有的。
解题思路:
1.要求是削弱,需要中逻辑中找茬。
2. 题目的论点是:关闭的店址将不会长期闲置。
3. 逻辑关键点:尽管有很多店关门,还是有新店不断开张,作者企图证明该地很火。
4.要做的就是证明此地不火,或者无法再火,或者店址有长期闲置的可能。
解题方法:
第一轮:排除法。没办法的时候只能这么用,因为顺推比较困难。
A,与解题关键点无关。无论顾客是否购物,这个不影响其他人开店。
B,正确。
C,不影响题目。
D,这个选项有迷惑性。人口增长会导致此地的商业需求增加。
E,这个属于无关选项。
排除掉A,C,E,
第二论:从B和D中选择。
我错在没看出B的内容和原文的逻辑相关。
刚才翻译完一遍后,突然恍然大悟。其实原题的逻辑很简单:
C店灭了所有的非折扣店,此后新开的都是折扣店。 然后S店作为折扣店中的战斗机,开了,预计将拍灭这些折扣店。
请注意,原文中从时态可以看出C店先开,S店后开,而拍灭那些小折扣店是将来时。 在这个逻辑推理中,需要找到的关键点就是“C店以后新开的都是折扣店”。
K A O!寂寞的姐终于搞清楚啦!!哈哈,我敢说这就是ETS的猫腻!
作者: ruirui_hsu 时间: 2011-2-15 14:24
我难道把原题的意思读错了?
原题后半句: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 distrct that closed because it could not compete with Colson's.
because 是在讲那些倒闭的店的原因啊,我以为再解释新店开张的原因。
以为是新店之所以开张是因为同C店无竞争.....
精准的阅读能力是王道啊....
欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |