第一次发非支持内容的贴。
Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson's.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened. B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores. C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had. D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville's population will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.
这道题还是很难的，算得上真正意义的难题。之前别的帖子有过什么类比推理的观点，我并不同意，以下贴出我的解题思路，以及对每一个选项的思考和解释：
题干：面对来自打折店S的竞争，未来5年很多打折店都要倒闭，但是店面很快就会有人要（Conclusion）。因为过去，在原价店C开张的5年里，每有一个店铺竞争不过原价店C倒闭之后，就有别的店铺在原来的店面开张（Premise）。
题目要求削弱题干的论述。首先要明白，削弱题的题干肯定有一个P到C的完整论述过程，而且这个过程隐含了一个没有说出口的前提假设，也即隐含条件。比如，小明是广州人。所以小明怕冷。这段论述成立的隐含条件是广州人怕冷。说回这个题干，题干成立的隐含条件是：愿意到C原价店附近开新店的人，也会同样愿意到S打折店附近开新店。这一个点比较关键，让我冒充题干里的“论述者”讲出来就是：The Stores that have opened at the locations where previous shops had closed due to the competition from Colson's, a nondiscount Store, would also be likely to open new stores at the locations where current discount stores are expected to close within 5 years due to competition from Spendless, a discount store. 好，那么我们看看选项里头，那个选项能够削弱这个论述过程。
首先看B正确答案：当年因为C原价店关门的店面，后来越来越多都开了折扣店。如果这是事实的话，根据题干中许多折扣店竞争不过新开张的S折扣店，而根据选项愿意到C原价店开新店的又大多是折扣店，所以可能没有新的折扣店愿意进驻到因为S而空出来的店面，因此恰恰沉重打击了题干的隐含前提，所以有效地削弱题干的论述过程。
再看其他答案为什么不对：
A. S打折店开张之前，人们就估计以后C原价店的顾客买的东西会变少。（这只能说明S抢走了C的生意，但不能说明S附近倒闭的店面很快有人去开店。属于irrevalent comparison，错误）
C. S打折店所在的商场店铺数量目前是历史巅峰。（无关的信息，属于NO TIE。非要解释的话，商店多就代表折扣店多吗？就算折扣店多，即使全都倒闭了，你怎么知道不会有大批新的商家进驻从而让这些空的店面很快重新出售？并没有对题干论述造成打击）
D. 未来五年，这个城市人口高速增长（有可能是外来人口，所以不一定新增的都是婴儿）。（这个选项既可以说与题干无关，也可以说增强了题干的说服力，但是题目要求选出削弱。常住人口变多之后，有可能购物的人也会变多，所以商铺可能不会空很久，但明显只是根据真实世界的常识，而不是与题干相关的信息，而且也增强了而不是削弱题干）
E. 很多其他商铺卖的东西，S或者C都不卖。（因此原来那些商店的可替代性弱，所以被S挤掉之后的店铺，可能很快就有别人去开。这其实增强了题干的说服力，虽然不是很关联题干，因此有可能作为一个待选的增强题干/strengthen的选项。
欢迎大家交流指正！这道题我也做错了，花了一个小时认真思考，搜索了以前的帖子，后来还是以曼哈顿学到的CR方法去解题，事实证明可行，但是过程时间太长，还要多加训练！
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2019-11-2 09:24:10
收藏
收藏
楼主