关于新prep1-77题，讨论了好久还是不明白，大家进来看看啊！！！！！

deityc

Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?

Twenty percent of the stores in Morganville's downtown shopping district will fail within five years because they will be competing directly with the SaveMart discount department store newly opened in East Morganville.The downtown shopping district has lost business at this rate before and has always completely rebounded.Confidence that it will rebound again from the losses it is now about to suffer is ill founded, however, because __
_.
A. the stores likely to be put out of business by direct competition from SaveMart are the downtown shopping district's anchor stores, on whose ability to draw shoppers many of the other downtown stores depend

B. the bus line that has long connected the downtown area of Morganville with East Morganville has a tradition of carrying shoppers who reside in East Morganville into downtown Morganville to shop

C. when the downtown shopping district has rebounded before, the business premises of a failed business were typically taken over by a business of the same kind as had been there before

D. SaveMart's business plan for the East Morganville store is based on earning low profits, if any, during the first five years of the store's existence

E. it is conceivable that the downtown shopping district could shrink substantially without collapsing altogether


答案是A


但是很有疑问，
原题的逻辑链是   在以前同样的倒闭率下，downtown  shopping 可以rebound  ----> 现在也可以

正确的答案应该 以前的 这个逻辑关系 应该被打破了，所以ill founded

A 说了倒闭的都是anchor 商店 ，但是题目并没有声明以前downtown 可以复苏的时候倒闭的不是anchor shopping

C 说以前歇业(不一定是因为竞争的原因)的shop都是被同类商店代替

    所以因为现在时因为竞争的关系致使倒闭的店铺，要是被相应的商店代替，新商店还是会收到竞争的影响，所以不一定会rebound 打破了类比的逻辑链

所以我选C


open discuss

sdcar2010

C says if a new stop of the same type replaces the closed old shop, the business will rebound. This does not suppor the author's opinion that the business will NOT rebound. This is just a number's game. When a new one replaces an old one, people call it rebound.

A on the other hand, gives a reasonable explanation of why business would not rebound in five years. A fits the author's position.

deityc

看一道类似的题目

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.

答案是B 两题很相似 ，这题的正确答案和 prep-77的C 很像，所以感觉还是C对

我觉得这题要削弱的是当前和以前的类比关系，而不仅仅削弱的是当前的情况

sdcar2010

What  you missed is the difference in the type of question: 77 is an enabling assumption to justify the conclusion, while 104 is a weakening on top of the difference in the conclusions. But both answers can explain why this time the situation is different.

deityc

C says if a new stop of the same type replaces the closed old shop, the business will rebound. This does not suppor the author's opinion that the business will NOT rebound. This is just a number's game. When a new one replaces an old one, people call it rebound.

A on the other hand, gives a reasonable explanation of why business would not rebound in five years. A fits the author's position.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/3/8 2:01:19)

我理解 C 的意思是  以前rebound 的现象是 关闭的商店被"same kind "的商店替代。而题目问的是"Confidence that it will rebound again from the losses it is now about to suffer is ill founded" 类似于削弱题目。那么C选项确实削弱了，因为以前这个可以类比的rebound不会再现在发生。

而 A选项 没有任何涉及到此次和前次的关系，所以不能说"ill found"

sdcar2010

On the contrary, C says nothing about the difference between this time and before, while A points out the difference: this time the anchor will fall and brings with it a drastically reduced shopper population. That's the definition of "anchor", without which the whole foundation tumbles.

deityc

Dear sdcar

难道我理解的C有错 ：C 只说以前倒闭的的企业都被同类企业代替。

是这个意思么？
如果是的话，那么现在因为Save Mart  的存在，同类企业都无法生存了 所以无法 rebound

sdcar2010

Where do you found the support for "因为Save Mart  的存在，同类企业都无法生存" in the stimulus or answer choices?

deityc

首先OG104 就是同样的推理（同类企业无法生存），导致weaken， 证明这种往前推一步是可以的。
其次，只看题目来说，既然现存的同类企业都被SaveMart 挤垮了，那么很自然新产生的同类企业也很难生存 起码rebound是有疑问的。

再者 如果A是对的，那么原文也没说“以前没有anchor类的企业倒闭啊”

sdcar2010

Hehe. Using the reasoning relied upon in one question to solve the paradox found in another question is not LOGICAL. Do not bring in your own judgement or extra hypothesis when analyzing the CR problems.

If C is true, the rebound will happen since when one shops closes, a similar one will replace it. No drop in total number of shops.