一道老题的理解,盼回复! 谢了!

各位路过的XDJM, 烦帮俺看看为啥10%的人换牌子, 和厂家每年10%的gross receipts 促销相抵呢?

Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette smokers switch brands. Yet the manufacturers have been spending an amount equal to 10 percent of their gross receipts on cigarette promotion in magazines. It follows from these figures that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay, and that cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising.

10%的人换牌子并不意味着: 收入会减少(如果我的用户有10%转到其它厂家的牌子)或增加(如果其它厂家牌子的用户10%转到我的牌子)呀!

厂家每年10%的gross receipts, 那是一定的意味着成本的消耗呀!

所以不明白为什么inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay? 或为什么cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising?

先谢了!

答案可以理解, 就是题干的理解. 谢谢!

Surveys show that every year only 10 percent of cigarette smokers switch brands. Yet the manufacturers have been spending an amount equal to 10 percent of their gross receipts on cigarette promotion in magazines. It follows from these figures that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay, and that cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising.

19.   Of the following, the best criticism of the conclusion that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay is that the conclusion is based on

(A) computing advertising costs as a percentage of gross receipts, not of overall costs

(B) past patterns of smoking and may not carry over to the future

(C) the assumption that each smoker is loyal to a single brand of cigarettes at any one time

(D) the assumption that each manufacturer produces only one brand of cigarettes（E）

(E) figures for the cigarette industry as a whole and may not hold for a particular company

这是一道削弱题，且属于调查类的特殊类型。可以从调查的有效性攻击。GG不妨联系AA中的fallacy其中有一项missapplied generalization指的就是文章与选项的情况。

再看LZ的问题，我试着分析一下。这里两个10%代表的意思可能分别是，广告耗费巨大，但转到他们的产品消费者数目变化不大，所以不划算。但很有可能个别广告特别成功，能吸引很多消费者转换牌子，所以这个survey 的validity值得怀疑。

不知道这样解释可以否

继续讨论

谢谢Stellaleigh的回复!

关于"AA中的fallacy其中有一项missapplied generalization指的就是文章与选项的情况" 恕小弟才学疏浅,AA是啥? 请指教!

另本题: "这里两个10%代表的意思可能分别是，广告耗费巨大，但转到他们的产品消费者数目变化不大，所以不划算。" 你的意思是其实这两个比较也只是一个粗略的比较,是吗?

谢谢!

呵呵，AA是做文档中的argument. 攻击的方法之一就是missaplied generalization就是指一个群体的特征不一定适用于这个群体的每一个个体。比较符合这个逻辑题的思路：）

关于两个百分比的理解纯粹个人理解，确实是指粗略的比较。你想做生意的人肯定都想maximize profit，所得当然应该比所付出的要多才好。那这样的话，付出了10%，所得也才只有10%， 不划算。

不知道这样回答了你的问题了没？

原文的意思：

调查表明每年有10%的吸烟者会换香烟的牌子。然而厂商每年却要花毛收入的10%来做促销（行业整体）。因此，可以从这两个数字中得出结论：通过广告来吸引吸烟者换香烟的牌子并不值得，而且即使不做广告，厂商也不会因此受到损失（公司个体）。

问题：下列选项能够对文中结论（inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay）构成criticism的是：文中的结论是以什么为基础的？
Of the following, the best criticism of the conclusion that inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay is that the conclusion is based on

为啥10%的人换牌子, 和厂家每年10%的gross receipts 促销相抵呢?

我觉得题目并没有说明这两个10%就是相抵的，而且是否相抵也并不重要。或者准确地说，你自己不需要有这样的想法，而只需要明白文中可能是认为两个10%是相抵（当然还可以有其他原因）所以才会得出结论说做广告并不值得。

你正是因为有了相抵的想法，所以你才会说“不明白为什么inducing cigarette smokers to switch brands did not pay? 或为什么cigarette companies would have been no worse off economically if they had dropped their advertising?”这只是原文提供的信息而已，或者说是原文作者武断的结论而已。而问题也正是要求你去批判这个结论。按照我们的日常思维，你的想法是正确的---只是从两个碰巧为10%的数字中怎么可以得出这样的结论，就像你说的收入可能增加也可能减少。但是，现在是在做题目，只需要懂原文的推理过程（两个10%-->广告不值 ），并不是去怀疑原文结论的真实与否。

说到底就是像Stellaleigh说的，调查的对象是香烟这一行业，但是当具体到每个香烟公司的话，原文结论就不成立，也就是说个别公司通过做广告来吸引转换品牌的吸烟者还是有利可图的。

不知道表达清楚没有，有种只可意会的感觉。sigh……