OG 12 104

CD用户363773

104. Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within fi ve 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 fi ve 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.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess
store opened.
(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been
discount stores.
(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
(D) Over the course of the next fi ve years, it is expected that Goreville’s population will grow at a faster rate
than it has for the past several decades.
(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either
SpendLess or Colson’s.

Argument Evaluation
Situation Due to competition from a recently opened SpendLess discount department store, discount
stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within fi ve years. But
those locations will not be vacant long, for new stores have replaced all those that closed
because of the opening fi ve years ago of a Colson’s nondiscount department store.

Reasoning Th e question is which option would most weaken the argument? Th e 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 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.

B为正确答案，我首先是passage就没弄明白，没看懂，哪位能帮忙解释一下吗？

不知道这几个商店到底是什么关系，是在同一个地区，还是把两个地区的商店做了个对比。

另外OG的解释也没弄明白。

taozike

我也是，顶一下！

hebelogo

我也是，那位高手解答一下

ruin_bow

这题的意思是，Goreville’s central shopping district将要因为a SpendLess discount department store的竞争而关闭，但是G所在的位置将不会长时间的空着。因为有这样一个例子， Colson’s周围每个因为C竞争而倒闭的店铺原址上都开了新的店铺。
题目的观点是G所在的位置不会长期空闲，然后举了C的例子来说明。Weaken最直接的方法就是削弱C情景和G情景之间的联系。
这题最阴险的地方是从题目中可以推出一个假设，就是discount store比nondiscount store更有竞争力。然后因为G的情况是和一个discount store竞争，而C的情况是和nondiscount store (C itself) 竞争。所以如果C附近的店铺能够存活是因为discount对nondiscount(C)带来的优势的话。那么C的案例就不能在G这里适用了，因为G情景下，竞争对手已经是discount store了。
个人观点，仅供参考，欢迎指教
这题真的很郁闷，要是在考场上我绝对做不出来。

maggie_yume

这道题我也纠结了很久，RUIN_BOW你的说法给了我一点启示，希望有其他牛人分享一下你们的看法。

童言无忌

这道题我也感到很困惑，觉得ruin_bow同学的解释挺有道理的。

jinwch

OG后面的解释,就和ruin-bow类似.赞一个...如果单独看OG后面的解释是比较迷糊的.

turn55

说的很好 这题折磨我很久...

amandafly

"Th e arguer infers that stores hat leave because of the SpendLess will be replaced in their locations by other stores because that is what happened after the Colson’s department came in. 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." 按文章逻辑推理:文章强调的是:a new store will open,since Colson`s opening,并且只有被Colson打击倒闭的店才replaces by new store,故因为the spendless竞争而close的店不会被replace;同时选项中指出一个现象,the increase of discount store since Colson`s open.但是在文中一开头就指出discount stores were replaced because of a need that no longer exists after the opening of SpendLess(如上面OG解释所示),故最终仍然有很多discount stores close,then the locations stay vacant;我们要关注题目真正想表达什么意思,从语法也能看出来.

amandafly

如下:The spendless open in the shopping district-->discount stores close, sub conclusion the locations will not stay vacant for long  &  Colson open --> competitors close -->new store open

选项插入一个现象:Colson open in the shopping district --> incresasely(注意!是副词) open of discount stores & the spendless compete -->discount stores close & 注意!New store 只会在locations of Competitors of the Colson处open,而被the spendless 淘汰的店是不会replaced by new store的,故得出结论there are still locations staying vacant.