费费96还没有人问过哪。。。

96. Prominent business executives often play active roles in United States presidential campaigns as fundraisers or backroom strategists, but few actually seek to become president themselves. Throughout history the great majority of those who have sought to become president have been lawyers, military leaders, or full-time politicians. This is understandable, for the personality and skills that make for success in business do not make for success in politics. Business is largely hierarchical, whereas politics is coordinative. As a result, business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing, which are inherent in politics.
   商人不从政的原因是不喜欢powersharing

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weaken the proposed explanation of why business executives do not run for president?

(A) Many of the most active presidential fundraisers and backroom strategists are themselves politicians.

(B) Military leaders are generally no more comfortable with compromises and power-sharing than are business executives.
   注意应该翻译成一样或者更少

(C) Some of the skills needed to become a successful lawyer are different from some of those needed to become a successful military leader.

(D) Some former presidents have engaged in business ventures after leaving office.
   总统变商人，证明可以融合但是没有提到powersharing所以无关，
  

(E) Some hierarchically structured companies have been major financial supporters of candidates for president.

我选成D了，后来发现是无关，因为觉得B还是有点不对，如果B选项改成military leader以前是商人就好了就更严密了，weaken应该否定商人从政的原因是不喜欢powersharing，而B选项说从政者也不喜欢Powersharing但是从政了

weaken 的形式有好多种，

1。原文前提和结论关系不明确：正确选项直接支持结论

2。因果型结论：他因；割断因果；因果倒置；显示因果关系的资料不明确

3。条件型结论：显示充分条件成立，必要条件不成立；或举反例

4。原文是类比：显示两者本质不同

5。调查：有效性受怀疑，

我觉得这里是比较明显的条件型结论

business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing

结论是：不妥协加之不愿意共享权利是商人不竞选总统的原因

答案B用文中的事实those who have sought to become president have been lawyers, military leaders举反例：military leader 同样不妥协也不愿意共享权利（但是他们中有人竞选总统），这样就推翻了前面的结论，表明不conpromise and power sharing不是商人不竞选总统的必要条件。（肯定存在其他必要条件），从而达到了weaken的效果。

至于military leader以前是不是商人和为什么商人不竞选总统并没有关系啊？

我是在想，要否定商人不竞选总统的原因肯定是说有商人接受了共享权利当了总统

至于其他人（比如说本来就是一个喜欢权利的人，没有从过商）接受共享权利当了总统和商人的原因是没有关系的

应该选B，有时看完题目后自己会预测一个weaken的原因，可能和正确答案不同，但其实都是weaken，但角度不同，程度不同而已。mm所说的也可以算是一种削弱，但我觉得不如答案strong。

“This is understandable, for the personality and skills that make for success in business do not make for success in politics. Business is largely hierarchical, whereas politics is coordinative”是事实情况，few actually seek to become president themselves也是事实情况，是结果，As a result, business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing, which are inherent in plitics. 是根据事实情况作者推断的原因，想说明business 有它特别的原因。题目问削弱，直接反对推断原因，说明politics和business在这方面是一样的，并不特别。直接削弱。

mm说的 如果B选项改成military leader以前是商人就好了就更严密了，weaken应该否定商人从政（你想说不从政吧）的原因是不喜欢powersharing，而B选项说从政者也不喜欢Powersharing但是从政了

我觉得你说的也没错，但答案里没有，有的话，我肯定会考虑。

绞尽脑汁了，终于想出来了，还是觉得B不严密

1。不喜欢power是商人不从政的原因，B选项说军事家也不喜欢power但是从政（说明不喜欢power不是军事家不从政的原因，并不影响“不喜欢power是商人不从政的原因”，举例把：不喜欢power的军事家照样从政，商人还是继续因为仅仅不喜欢power不从政，即两类人对同一事物持同一看法，但是引起不同的结果）：如果改成不喜欢power的商人后来从政了就否定结论

2。如果理解成要驳斥的是不喜欢Power是所有人不从政的原因，军事家不喜欢Power，但是从政，还是否定结论说明不喜欢Power不是不从政的原因，即所有人（一类人）对同一事物持同一看法，引起不同的结果就是矛盾的

以前都是找出他因产生同一个结果，这里是同一原因产生不同结果来否定原因

open to discuss!!

但是ls发现没有，OG这题是要推翻人们因为在黑夜活动就迫害这一类动物，文中说了猫头鹰和蝙蝠都是一类，而这题费费没有加这个前提