大全-16-16

greenbow43

还是不懂 期待lawyer解答之中

……………………

shzzhengfan

我的理解是:   要weaken这句:"This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market"  就要说" 这个分析是对的,不是因为 even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market,而是因为superstore 的low price"     即支持原结论, 就象版主分析的一样.

晴天小狗

(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices has forced prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.

B选项weaken的应该是这句话啊：has been attributed to the advent of office equipment “superstores” whose high sales volume keeps their prices low.

原文不是说

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

怎么解释？

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

怎么解释？

Miranda_a

flaw是因为small share of the retail market，削弱了文中的“high sales volume -----> their prices low”。即削弱了their prices low。

要反对flaw，则支持their prices low，来支持它所推出的的结论：many small firms have gone out of business

文中用了他因来支持their prices low，即B中The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low prices ----->prices down throughout the retail market for office supplies.

o_c_01

这题应该选D啊~~~

This analysis is flawed, however, since even today the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed?

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are owned by large retailing chains that also own stores selling other types of goods.

题目问的是，如何能weaken “This analysis is flawed”这一论点， 作者认为analysis is flawed的理由是 the superstores control a very small share of the retail market.
D说明，虽然，superstore只control a very small share of the retail market，但是它实际被一些大的连锁店掌控~~

直接weaken结论的原因~~

judyzhang

这道题说的是：办公用品市场的大动荡是由于那些superstores 的低价战略引起的。作者认为这种归因是错误的，因为那些superstores所销售的办公用品占市场的份额很小。

选择反对作者分析错误的选项，就是赞同题干--办公用品市场的大动荡是由于那些superstores 的低价战略引起的

不知道说明白了没有。

wangshu0306

这题的答案显然是A。

analysis的逻辑链是这样的：superstores的销售量很大————superstores的价格很低————（引发价格战，导致其他公司利润降低）造成其他小公司倒闭

指出analysis有flaw的逻辑链是这样的：superstores的零售市场份额很低————(superstores的销售量不是很大）————analysis论证的前提不存在————所以有flaw。

现在题干要我们找出weaken the argument that the analysis is flawed的论据，那么也就是能够weaken“superstores的零售市场份额很低”的观点的论据。仔细看看A选项就发现了下面的逻辑链：

大多数大客户不通过零售市场买office equipment，而是直接和厂家签合同 + superstores也是office equipment————大多数大客户购买superstores的方法也是直接和厂家签合同————“superstores的零售市场份额很低”并不能推出“superstores的销售量不是很大”的结论————analysis其实没有flaw。

选择B其实有点像自说自话，王顾左右而言他，人家攻击你的论据A有flaw，最直接的回应就应该是去defend论据A，而不是把论据B再加强一下，何况论据B的成立还是建立在论据A的基础上的。

mac_bobo

到底答案是什么啊？

晕！

flyuo2006

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-3-30 16:39:44编辑过]

ghgriffin

14楼讲的很清楚，谢谢了

价格低是一个事实，在题里是让其他厂商退出竞争的原因

在weaken的选项中要坚持这个事实

而A中则没有这样的事实出现，属于无关！