GWD-13-23

In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie theaters started propping its popcorn in canola oil, instead of the less healthful coconut oil that it had been using until then.  Now Moviemania is planning to switch back, saying that the change has hurt popcorn sales.  That claim is false, however, since according to Moviemania’s own sales figures, Moviemania sold 5 percent more popcorn last year than in the previous year.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument against Moviemania’s claim? 横向排除他因？

1. Total sales of all refreshments at Moviemania’s movie theaters increased by less than 5 percent last year.


2. Moviemania makes more money on food and beverages sold at its theaters than it does on sales of movie tickets.


3. Moviemania’s customers prefer the taste of popcorn popped in coconut oil to that of popcorn popped in canola oil.


4. Total attendance at Moviemania’s movie theaters was more than 20 percent higher last year than the year before.


5. The year before last, Moviemania experienced a 10 percent increase in popcorn sales over the previous year.

   Answer: A

本题A选项的加强作用是如何实现的？实在理不顺。这种加强属于哪种类型？

BTW，哪位NN帮我分析一下加强题的种类，加强题我感觉是最模糊的。多谢了

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=24&id=68254

不知 这帖有没有帮你解答?

原文的推理：

propping its popcorn in canola oil（In January of last year）比propping its popcorn in coconut oil（in the previous last year）制造的popcorn销量增加了5％；－>用propping its popcorn in coconut oil去替代propping its popcorn in canola oil是错误的。

问支持？

A说在点心的总的销量增加小于5％，排除了其它原因导致销量增长（不是由propping its popcorn in canola oil造成的，而是总销量增加（顾客消费增加等因素））。

我所见到的支持一般如下：

1、排除它因；

2、前提和结论之间搭桥（同假设）；

3、就是这个原因导致这个结果，比如原命题的逆否命题；

4、没有这个原因就没有这个结果（较少见，老JJ见过）。

以上纯属个人观点，难免错误和遗漏之处，请指正！

"4、没有这个原因就没有这个结果（较少见，老JJ见过）。"

能否举例指点一下。

此题应该属于排除他因了，对吧

最后一种加强我记得的一道题，只能说个大概，说A专卖店采取B措施导致结果C，问加强？

答案说D专卖店（其它条件和A相同）没有采用B措施没有导致结果C。

新的题型很少见到！实战当中不要去想是属于那一种方法。在逻辑链上只要朝着有利于原文推理的方向就能构成加强。

相比而言，削弱的答案出现形式更加多样一些！