GWD4-Q20 求助

bearEileen

Q40: GWD-4-20

Community activist:  If Morganville wants to keep its central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store on the outskirts of Morganville.  Records from other small towns show that whenever SaveAll has opened a store outside the central shopping district of a small town, within five years the town has experienced the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores in the shopping district.

 

The answer to which of the following would be most useful for evaluating the community activist’s reasoning?

 

A.    Have community activists in other towns successfully campaigned against the opening of a SaveAll store on the outskirts of their towns?

B.    Do a large percentage of the residents of Morganville currently do almost all of their shopping at stores in Morganville?

C.    In towns with healthy central shopping districts, what proportion of the stores in those districts suffer bankruptcy during a typical five-year period?

D.    What proportion of the employees at the SaveAll store on the outskirts of Morganville will be drawn from Morganville?

这里答案是C，我选的是B，我在做的时候在ＣＢ之间纠结了一段时间，但是我觉得B更彻底啊，知道现在是否大部分的顾客在城内消费？如果现在已经有很多人本来就不是在城内消费的，那么即使开了那家店，对城内的影响应该也不会像题目说的这么严重了啊？C为何错？麻烦回的NN们帮我解答一下吧。谢谢谢谢

lollypp

it should prevent的依据是：Records from other small towns ，是一种策略达目的性，那评价的方向即此策略可达目的吗？这样想答案肯定要跟bankruptcies 有关。B其实是无关选项了：因为还存在其他更多的因素来评价消费群，与本题推论无关。

TracyTeng

结论：prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store.

依据：records from other small towns- if opened, ¼+的stores suffer bankruptcy.

可看出文章内容有断层：1/4+的stores suffer bankruptcy是否就是more negative的？这个需要跟if SaveAll not open, the rate of bankruptcy来比较才能下结论。

因此此evaluation就是这个断层。
        

惯有思路：说某种东西存在的时候不好，答案要进行削弱就是说明没有这种东西更不好。

Justin12122

B无关了。shopping district的customer的多少 无法与 SaveAll对bankruptcy的影响 构成联系。

记忆钢琴

tracy解释得很清楚~

fenglikang

如果想让M的消费市场健康，那么就不该引进S，因为只要有S的地方，5年之内总会有四分之一的商场破产。即题目假设S是让健康消费市场四分之一商场破产的唯一原因。但题目中并不能推断出这样的信息。如果一个健康的消费市场本身就存在5年之内会有四分之一商场破产的自然现象，那么即使不引进S，也还是会出现四分之一商场破产的情况，即否定了S是导致倒闭的唯一原因。

Donatella780

楼上说得好。我错选了E。。

415lethe

错选了C，觉得tracy断层找的不对，但确实给了我点启发，以下个人看法
结论：prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store. TO KEEP shopping district HEALTHY
依据：records from other small towns- if opened, ¼+的stores suffer bankruptcy.
可看出文章内容有断层：1/4+的stores suffer bankruptcy是整个small towns的，而现在的目的是打造健康购物区。
评估方向：健康购物区的商家倒闭情况怎样？
如果是，那么SAVEALL确实对购物区影响不好

争取一次就过

(C) The answer to this question is key to evaluating the reasoning of the argument. The entire argument is based on the fact that a quarter of the stores in towns with nearby SaveAlls experienced bankruptcy, and that statistic is used to show that SaveAll stores cause shopping districts to be unhealthy.

So what would help to connect that rate of bankruptcies to the conclusion that those shopping districts are unhealthy is the rate of bankruptcies experienced by healthy towns.

If healthy towns experience the bankruptcies of a quarter of the stores in their shopping districts, then the statistic used as a premise of the argument does not connect the opening of SaveAll stores with unhealthy shopping districts, and so the conclusion based on that statistic is unsupported.
别人的评论，个人觉得很有道理。转换成中文大意就是，如果健康的区域五年之内也有25%的破产，那健不健康就和saveall 无关了。

闭眼看书

B选项默认了SV open leads to unhealthy, 而这个是没有证据支持的。A 先于B 出现不代表A cause B. 则无因有果可以削弱。 况且M之外的residents也可以到M purchase。