OG11-15很困惑

A resercher studing drug addicts found that, on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than nonaddicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.

which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcher's conclusion?

A.after becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.

B.when they are imprisoned, drug addicts often use their ability to manipulate other people to obtain better living conditions.

C.peole who are likely to become addicts exhibit unusual behavior patterns other than frequent manipulation of other people

D.people who are likely to become addicts exhibit unusual behavior patterns other than frequent manipulation of other people

E.the addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people

答案：A

这题提干不长，但是我就是很难理解“manipulate”在里面的意思

于是整个题目让我很困惑，

因果倒置的weaken.

I eat apple so I am a healthy eator.

Weaken: I eat apply because I am healthy eator.

can you feel the difference?

哦~明白啦.原来是这样

谢谢二位解答

让我茅塞顿开吖

还有哦~我刚开始学GMAT, 这个因果倒置该在哪里学呢?

我觉得还有一种理解方法,原文是从一个现象,得出一个结论,而结论一般解释了这个现象(因为经常操纵别人的人容易上瘾,所以,上瘾的就操纵别人多于没上瘾的)

削弱的方向(因为原文的论据是个事实不能削弱)1:不是原文的因为解释这个现象(答案方向是有其他的因为解释一个现象,既因为上瘾以后,那些吸毒的学习操纵别人为了得到毒品,这个原因就是答案,所以上瘾的操纵别人多于没上

                  2说明论据和结论之间的关系

我想问的是，C选项（这边C和D选项重复了）为什么不对呢？

non addicts甚至表现出比addicts更强的操纵人的倾向，不是削弱了原题吗？

谢谢

NON addict表现出更强的操作人的倾向是不错

但是结论说的是：操纵能力强的人会变成addict

结论并没说，addict比non addict的人操纵能力更强

现在是non addict不能说明他们就不会变成addict。C说的东西和结论没什么关系

同意楼上的说法：“C说的东西和结论没什么关系”

d还是不太明白