标题: 一道逻辑题求解！ [打印本页] 作者: xyz100032 时间: 2012-3-13 11:32 标题: 一道逻辑题求解！ A year ago, Dietz Foods launched a yearlong advertising campaign for its canned tuna. Last year Dietz sold 12 million cans of tuna compared to the 10 million sold during the previous year, an increase directly attributable to new customers brought in by the campaign. Profits from the additional sales, however, were substantially less than the cost of the advertising campaign. Clearly, therefore, the campaign did nothing to further Dietz’s economic interests. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? (A) Sales of canned tuna account for a relatively small percentage of Dietz Foods’ profits. (B) Most of the people who bought Dietz’s canned tuna for the first time as a result of the campaign were already loyal customers of other Dietz products. (C) A less expensive advertising campaign would have brought in significantly fewer new customers for Dietz’s canned tuna than did the campaign Dietz Foods launched last year. (D) Dietz made money on sales of canned tuna last year. (E) In each of the past five years, there was a steep, industry-wide decline in sales of canned tuna. OG12 diagnostic 中的34题，不明白B选项为什么不对，求解！作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-3-13 12:19
34. The conclusion is: the campaign did NOTHING to further Dietz’s economic interests.
If a campaign did SOMETHING to further Dietz's economic interests, then the conclusion is weakened. E) says that the campaign minimized the loss. That's SOMETHING!
B) on the other hand states that those NEWLY added buyers of the can were loyal customers to begin with. Therefore, it is likely, these customer bought the item out of blind loyalty rather than affected by the AD CAMPAIGN. In other words, the AD CAMPAIGN has no effect to lure NEW customers. B) strengthens the conclusion. The campaign did NOTHING. The phrase "as a result" does not suggest any causation between the two items. It only indicates correlation. For the record, those buyers might not have watched those AD.