求问此题A为何错了，A看起来也蛮合理的啊，求大神解答

熊猫阿竹

逻辑CR-ea2mhk收藏

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

• AIn 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.  分析A选项
• BIn 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.  分析B选项
• CMost of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.  分析C选项
• DPeople often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.  分析D选项
• EPeople who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.  分析E选项
  

正确答案：E

alzn2765

你这看格式是KMF（论坛不让说这个网站的名字）复制过来的吧？下面有解释啊！里面高手和段子手都云集，一边学习一边看段子，可好玩了。
再说这是OG上也有的题，OG也有解释，不明白你为啥要问。

A就是一个标准的无关比较的例子。比较的内容跟文章内容无关啊！你要是能在自己不额外附加条件的前提下把A解释通了，你就是大神！

杯uu

我觉得题目意思是说C这个地方的整个video出租量都下降了，  Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to ，V的出租量本来就包含在整个出租量里边，A是没有意义的。那么整个行业的出租量下降是因为是什么呢，选E

navilaava

杯uu 发表于 2016-9-2 16:05
我觉得题目意思是说C这个地方的整个video出租量都下降了，  Video rental outlets in Centerville together ...

同意！
而且J的观点里也强调了新开的Videorama是在C这个地区的，所以减少的10000里也包括Videorama的rentals
.....due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Bradz

这题个人认为有点儿问题。文中brad说4000的销售量不足以解释10000的出租量下降，他的论点是必有它因！而题目的问题是哪一个选项削弱了brad的质疑，那么，字面意义就是问：哪一个选项说明出租量的下降没有其他原因，就是因为销售量导致。

相比其它选项，E似乎最可靠。但是它仍然是为出租量的下降提供了销售量以外的其他导致因素，所以并没有削弱brad的质疑。所以我觉得题目出的很有问题。当然，可以argue拥有者借出给朋友是因为有了销售才导致的新行为，所以与销售这个新模式有关联，但是个人不觉得朋友间出租和销售新模式可以直接划等号，当做一个解释来看。

Farahah

Bradz 发表于 2016-10-17 15:02
这题个人认为有点儿问题。文中brad说4000的销售量不足以解释10000的出租量下降，他的论点是必有它因！而题 ...

J的结论是V的开张导致C城整体vedio出租少了10000，Brad的结论本质提炼为不是V的开张而是他因导致租量下降。结论并不是v的销售量只有4000，结论的关键词是V是否open。
E选项人们有了vedio后经常借给朋友，这恰恰是由于V开张导致的，并不是他因。
该题出的还是很严谨的。

马儿嘚嘚

B说出租量下降了10000单，而V卖了4000，所以V的销售量4000不足以解释出租量10000的下降；
问削弱，就是说要找到出租量下降了10000单，但是是由于V的销售量导致的；
去选项找一个，只要能说明V销售量和出租量下降的关系的，应该就是答案。看看只有E

ba1a糖儿

A 租出的video多。租出的多怎么解释总rental的下降？？不对吧（1st误选A）

自救750

搬一个ron神的解释，非常清晰！膜拜大神
--------------
as with all other Weaken problems, you should SIMPLIFY THE ARGUMENT first.
here's the simplified argument:
J: The loss of 10,000 rentals was all Videorama's fault.
B: That's not possible, since Videorama only sold 4000 videos.

in other words, brad's objection is based on the fact that 4000 is a smaller number than 10,000.
to WEAKEN brad's objection, you have to COME UP WITH A WAY FOR 4000 SALES TO CANCEL OUT 10,000 RENTALS.
(a) is irrelevant to this issue.
(e) provides a perfect reason why the 4000 sales could, indeed, compensate for the 10,000 rentals: if the sold videos are loaned around, then each of them could cancel out multiple rentals.
-------------

StephenFRA

该题目的问题在于Videorama在不在Centerville，如果videorama不在，在附近的area，那V的rental也影响Centerville的总体rental，那A选项就不能说无关选项，只能说4000加rental的值未必等于10000，也可能少于10000，例如rent 5000 videos，同样的逻辑应用到E，就很难选。所以我觉得争论点反而在这里。