manhattan上一道OG改编题

wynyy2000

Editorial: In order to preserve the health of its local economy, Metropolis should
not permit a Costmart warehouse department store to open with city limits. It has
been demonstrated that when Costmart opens a warehouse department store within
a city, the bankruptcy rate of local retailers increases in that city by twenty percent
over the next several years.
Which of the following questions would be most useful for evaluating the conclusion
of the editorial?
(A) Does the bankruptcy rate of local retailers in a city generally stabilize several
years after a Costmart warehouse department store opens?
(B) Do most residents of Metropolis currently do almost all of their shopping at
stores within the city limits of Metropolis?
(C) Have other cities that have permitted Costmart warehouse department stores
within city limits experienced any economic benefits as a result?
(D) Is the bankruptcy rate for local retailers in Metropolis higherthan in the average
city that has permitted a Costmart warehouse department store within city
limits?
(E) Does Costmart plan to hire employees exclusively from within Metropolis for
the proposed warehouse department store?
B选项，如果M的居民根本就不去stores with city limits,那么即便C的开张，也不会带来任何的bankruptcy 的影响
正确答案是C，但我个人认为对其他城市的调查，不一定适用于M城？

坤kun

B中有一个currently，也就是说居民现在不去买，至于开了一个Costmart warehouse department store 以后去不去买不知道，所以不能选

ningningzhang

这一题绕的地方在于conclusion没有直接给出，需要根据原文总结：因为C店的开张会带来某种负面影响（当地零售店的倒闭率增加百分之20），所以C店的开张会影响当地经济健康。

这个推理存在一个漏洞（即缺另一个必要条件）：除了负面影响，是否C店开业也会带来好处( benefit)？如果C店的开业同时也带来足够多的好处，那么这些好处就可以抵消负面影响。这样从总体上看，C店开业是促进了当地经济的发展，而非影响当地经济的健康。

选项C里有最为关键的economic benefits。至于other cities看似是无关元素，其实与原文的premise一脉相承。原文正是用的other cities的情况来作为premise，推出结论。只不过原文用的是 It has been demonstrated that ..这样的表达方式，而没有直接出现other cities这个词。

lyly85777

理解啦 ！！！！