[讨论]请教 07 Sep里的LR，谢谢！

1. People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. Those persons who are perceived as forming opinions of others only after cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence are generally resented. Thus, it is imprudent to appear prudent.

Which one the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?

A.      People who act spontaneously are well liked.

B.      Imprudent people act instantly and intuitively.

C.      People resent those less prudent than themselves.

D.     People who are intuitive know instantly when they like someone.

E.      It is imprudent to cause people to resent you.

The answer is E. WHY?????

2. Most economists believe that reducing the price of any product generally stimulates demand for it. However, most wine merchants have found that reducing the price of domestic wines to make them more competitive with imported wines with which they were previously comparably priced is frequently followed by an increase in sales of those imported wines.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the belief of most economists with the consequences observed by most wine merchants?

 A . Economists’ studies of the prices of grocery items and their rates of sales rarely cover alcoholic beverages.

B. few merchants of any kind have detailed knowledge of economic theories about the relationship between item prices and sales rates.

C. consumers are generally willing to forgo purchasing other items they desire in order to purchase a superior wine.

D. Imported wines in all price ranges are comparable in quality to domestic wines that cost less.

E. An increase in the demand for a consumer product is compatible with an increase in  demand for a competing product.

The answer iS E. I don’t understand because the argument doesn’t mention that the domestic wines ( competing product ) have any sale increase, on the contrary, it’s the demand for imported wines ( consumer product) that has increased. 

there's another one, I am going between the two answer choices.

there's another one, I am going between the two answer choices.

there's another one, I am going between the two answer choices.

 3.  Mayor Smith, one of our few government official s with a record of outspoken, informed, and consistent opposition to nuclear power plant construction projects, has now declared herself in favor of building the nuclear power plant at Littletown. If someone with her past antinuclear record now favors building this power plant, then there is good reason to believe that it will be safe and therefore should be built.

 3.  Mayor Smith, one of our few government official s with a record of outspoken, informed, and consistent opposition to nuclear power plant construction projects, has now declared herself in favor of building the nuclear power plant at Littletown. If someone with her past antinuclear record now favors building this power plant, then there is good reason to believe that it will be safe and therefore should be built.

 3.  Mayor Smith, one of our few government official s with a record of outspoken, informed, and consistent opposition to nuclear power plant construction projects, has now declared herself in favor of building the nuclear power plant at Littletown. If someone with her past antinuclear record now favors building this power plant, then there is good reason to believe that it will be safe and therefore should be built.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

D. it leads to the further but unacceptable conclusion that any project favored by Mayor Smith should be sanctioned simply on the basis of her having spoken out in favor of it.

E. it gives no indication of either the basis of Mayor Smith’s former opposition to nuclear power plant construction or the reasons for her support for the Littletown project.

The answer is E, I chose D.  Could someone explain to me that, why we need to know the Mayor’s former opposition or reasons for supporting the project in order to make the argument valid.  Because I thought there’s nothing to do with the Mayor’s former attitude as long as we know his current one.

Thank you  so much.
    

2. The economists predict an increased demand for domestic wine after the price reduction; the mechants report an increased demand for imported wine. So, intuitively, people think the demand for domestic wine has not increased -> economists are wrong. The question is how to reconcile the prediction of economists and what the merchants reported, i.e. to prove that they are both correct. E does this by stating that An increase in the demand for a consumer product (domestic, i.e. economists are right) is compatible with an increase in  demand for a competing product (imported, ie. merchants are right).  

3. The conclusion is general: there is good reson to believe XXX. We are not to evaluate the position of Mayor Smith. The change of his position is just a premise for the general conclusion.

Therefore, D is a quick loser. It says the argument leads to a conclusion that Smith bla bla. The conclusion has nothing to do with Mayor Smith.  

E challenges the validity of the premise. Does this change of position really lead to the conclusion that we should believe nuclear power is safe? Why did he change his position? Is that because he really found nuclear power is safe, or he just became insane?