prep 很简单的一道题

carolcai

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?

 

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.

(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.

(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.

(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

答案是e，可以理解，但为什么a不对啊？

糖棠8875

B 说因为Ｖ只卖了４０００，远小于１０，０００，所以不能说Ｖ造成了（租的）decline．

要weaken，就得说这卖的４０００能达到租１０，０００的效果吧．

Ａ　Ｖ租出去的数目比买出去的数目多　　　完全没办法说明啊．

sophiayan11

不懂。。。我也选A。。。那如果借出去更多，的确能影响啊

shaan

第二个人的反对理由是这个新公司只卖了4000，不到一万，因此缺口一定不是由于卖出去而减少的租量。

注意他说的是一定有别的理由：A中所说的该公司卖的没有租的多，那么租借的损失应该小于10000，甚至还要小，即这个公司的到来应该导致租量上升，怎么会下降？那肯定是有别的理由，因此是支持了第二个人的结论！！！

只有e可以说明啊，因为买了的顾客又借给别人，导致租借下降。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-5-14 22:45:49编辑过]

carolcai

明白了。看来审题还是很重要。