请教斑竹，一定要看啊，我绕不出来了．sec16-16

16. The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail business, in which many small firms have gone out of business, has been attributed to the advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.
   Which of the following, if true, would most weaken
   the argument that the analysis is flawed?
   (A) Most of the larger customers for office
       equipment purchase under contract directly
       from manufacturers and thus do not participate
       in the retail market.
   (B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low
       prices has forced prices down throughout the
       retail market for office supplies.
   (C) Some of the superstores that only recently
       opened have themselves gone out of business.
   (D) Most of the office equipment superstores are
       owned by large retailing chains that also own
       stores selling other types of goods.　　（Ｂ）
   (E) The growing importance of computers in most
       offices has changed the kind of office
       equipment retailers must stock.

我做错了．选Ａ．我想问下这题的思路和削弱过程．

我的想法：首先，这题有２个结论．后一个削弱前一个．

结论１： whose high sales volume keeps their prices low　即：high sales--->price low

结论２：（削弱结论１）This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market　　　即：share market 并不大，sales并不high．即：因为市场份额小，所以price低不是由大的销售量所导致

也就是说结论２的意思是：不是市场份额高，销售量高，所导致价格低（因此削弱了第一个结论）

那么，题目问，削弱第２个结论（weaken　the argument that the analysis is flawed）　可以是：市场份额小，也可以价格很低．

我觉得Ｂ并不是削弱结论２啊．而是削弱了结论１．加强了结论２．

Ｂ说：ＡＤ－－－＞price low

结论１：high sales--->price low

结论２：sales 并不high　（但是price low）也就是隐含了它因，使的price low．正好和Ｂ符合了．怎么能说Ｂ是削弱结论２呢？

真的绕进去了．．晕死了。救命．

另外：我想问下Ａ是怎么错的？是不是就是因为Ａ说的是manufacture而不是superstores?

不是版主。正好看见，说说我的想法。

题干前部分是说某零售业巨变，小企业都退出市场，归咎于价格低的superstores的出现，后半部分argument说这个分析错误，因为现在的superstores的市场份额很小。

问题：要削弱argument。

A项 某些顾客没有进入零售业市场。而正文讲的就是零售业，因此无关。

B项 superstores对其低价大作广告导致整个行业价格下降。整个行业的低价使得小企业退出，这是对前部分分析的加强，也就是削弱了认为前面的分析不正确的那个argument

同意.

B简单点说: superstores市场份额小, 但影响力大.

整个行业 = 包括小企业.

原题结论中的flaw是假设了small market share不足影响整个行业. B指出了这个flaw.

再问，我还是晕啊．脑袋打结了．

B项 superstores对其低价大作广告导致整个行业价格下降。整个行业的低价使得小企业退出，这是对前部分分析的加强，也就是削弱了认为前面的分析不正确的那个argument

这个怎么是对前面的加强呢？这个说广告多使price低，前面说是销售量大使price低．也就是说，Ｂ隐含了：广告做的多，销售量就多．　是这样吗？