一道prep`````

chasefreedom

有一道prep的题，觉得答案有点莫名其妙阿```
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1944 than in 1933. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1944 opining of Videorama, the first and only cideo rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.
Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1944.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?
A. In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
B. In 1944 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.
C. Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.
D. People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
E. People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

我的思路是这样的，weak the objection, 意思就是支持Jennifer, 反对Brad, 然后 五个选项读完就觉得A还是对的，但是答案却不是A``谢谢你的帮助啦`````

sdcar2010

EEEEEEEEEEEEe

chasefreedom

但是，大侠，怎么做啊·······谢大侠····

sdcar2010

For weakening question, you do not need to refute the original argument. You only need to cast some doubts on the argument to make it unlikely.

If E is right, let's say the buyer lends its newly bought video tape once to his/her friends, that might lead to 4,000 drop in video rentals. If twice, 8,000. If trice, 12,000. This possibility casts doubts on Brad's claim that Videorama did not cause the drop in video rentals in the region.

ccronaldo

这题形我之前见过一题 变态题 问的是weaken the force of objection 后者提出了反对前者的意见 拿什么反对的 后者提出了论据 就是 下降了一万 但是只降了四千 我们要做的就是去攻击这个论据的不足 这个论据的意思是卖了四千分 没法弥补一万份 e答案说 四千分的拥有者把这四千分借给别人了 因此就弥补了那六千分 不知道你明白了没
这种题目恶毒精髓就是要抓住 找出他使用的论据中有哪些漏洞 这种时候就想一楼说的 不用去看前者的观点 这里把前几天看到的另外一题给你 你体会下吧
Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants.  The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded.  Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago.  Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland.  The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.

B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.

C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.

D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.

E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

ccronaldo

而且A是完全错误的 题目已经说了少了10000份rentals 这已经包括了把新开的店的rental算进去了 所以a说的租了比4000更多 就算租了20000000份 前面也说了总数少了一万分了

chasefreedom

大侠，好牛，好想成为你······谢大侠！

chasefreedom

谢谢你·······谢谢你·····谢谢你·····大侠！

ccronaldo

不客气 加油吧

晓野的野

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-8-19 22:17
For weakening question, you do not need to refute the original argument. You only need to cast some  ...

啊呀 又见到大大了 想了好久没想明白
仔细看了好几遍题 发现把Brad的意思理解错了
呃