- UID
- 1200542
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2016-3-26
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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.主要是怎么理解这句话
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].}
a new store has opened at the location
-location (of…) 什么样的location
-every store (in the district)（that closed because it could not…）括号里的两个都是拿来修饰store
意思是：新的商店会开在[在这个district的、因为无法竞争过C的＋每一家商店]的location 上
换句话说就是，原来的商店一关门就会有新的商店在原来关门的商店位置上开业
虽然，受到刚开业S打折商店的的竞争，在G商业区的打折商店预期5年内关门，但是那些位置不会空太长时间。在不打折商店C开业的五年里，新开店铺会在每一个原来倒闭的商店的位置上开业每一个在这个位置的都关门了是因为他们无法竞争过C。
Argument：those locations will not stay vacant for long（之前自己就已经判断出来的）
逻辑链：
C店出现（不打折）--》旁边的店倒闭--》倒闭店址有新折扣店开
S店出现（打折）--》旁边的店倒闭--------------》argument：倒闭店址也会有新店开
OG解释：The arguer infers that stores that leave because of the SpendLess will be replaced in their locations by other stores because that is what happened after the Colson’s department store came in. Since the reasoning relies on a presumed similarity between the two cases, any information that brings to light a relevant dissimilarity would weaken the argument. If the stores that were driven out by Colson’s were replaced mostly by discount stores, that suggests that the stores were replaced because of a need that no longer exists after the opening of SpendLess.
LAWYER解释：
Now try to weaken this conclusion!!!
The only way the conclusion can be weaken in this case is if we can prove that we are comparing apple with oranges...
1 这种题属于类比题（discount 与non-discount），那关键就是要找出两者本质不同→无法对比。
这个是SC的思路，看到比较找对象是否对等，是否有可比性
2、在看看两者到底有什么不同。
（1）前面一部分是在讨论：G商业区的discount store倒闭是因为Spendless (discount store)
（2）后面一部门是在讨论：stores倒闭时因为Colson (non-discount store)
注意，后面一部分的stores到底是discount还是non-discount，题目没有说，因此这里就是我们的突破点了！
我们的目标是找出能够表明以上类比的两部分之间的不同之处。如果这些stores是discount的，那他们close是因为Spendless，而不是因为Colson咯，这就是选项B所说的！
3、这道题实质就是：题目想用一个例子来证明另一个例子也会有相同的结果，因此我们所要做的就是说明两个例子性质不同，无法得出文中argument
颇为流氓却有效的做法：
考场上用不着，一分半钟一般是想不通逻辑关系的，只看是否相关
就是找point，找核心词
A 客户被期待……… 主观，错
B，说开店的问题，地方范围也对，留着
C,店的数量与过去的数量对比，原文说新店会开张因为没竞争，无关
D,人的数量问题，自己只用通过联想才能与原文连上，主观，错
E，卖的东西的是什么，原文没有说，错
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2017-5-15 14:34:19
