[求助]LSAT-8-4-8 做了两遍都没选出C

icewarm

It seems that some people have answer sheets laden with errors. Be careful. Find other more reliable sources for your studying materials.

hawkeyesun

I actually think the correct answer is D. 

The conclusion is that the new buyers are more comfortable with recorded classic music and has no desire to hear live performance. Answer D assumes that The classical records available in Malsenia are, for the most part, not recordings of actual public concerts.  So it does support the conclusion that buyers do not like to hear from acutal public concert performance.

noinno

支持c,因为n m不听现场的原因有可能是现在的音乐会场数较之以前减少了，导致人们听现场的机会减少所以才购买records,而c排除了这个原因，表明，音乐会的场次仍然没有减少，也就是说，客观的条件现在跟以前比没有改变，改变的是人们主观上的偏好，这才能得出结论。因为结论就是说的主观上人们的偏好改变了，而直接默认了c指出来的，主观改变的同时客观仍然不变的假设。

xueer

too hard

zsazsa

The correct answer should be B.

Let's examine the stimulus closer. It concludes on the the ground that the buyer don't go to the concert because they don't want to do so. But what if they buy records instead of go to concert because of the difference of accessibility between the two. Say, it's easier or more convienient to listen the music thru records, for the tickets for a concert is hard or even impossible to get. In this way, we must validate the conclusion by eradicating the possible that the situation happens when concerts are available to those who buy records. Thus, we come to the right crack.

However, when considering of choice C, we may use the neglect+weaken way. True, there's possibility that the decrease of concerts results in a shrink of audience. But how? Even the number of concerts goes down, we can still reasonably to claim that the disire for concerts goes down, because the number of concerts and desire cannot related to each other that tightly, at least from the information we know from the stimulus. then no weakening.

caiwencn2007

支持C

反推

kangkangkang

绝对是B。C的关键错误是它说的是in response to smaller audiences,which happens before the number of concert decrease. So the decrease of number of concert is a result of small audiences, but not the cause. If it is not stated as in response to small audience, it will have same explanary power as B.

嫱嫱

singdeath

花了N多时间看完了大家关于B和C的讨论，说说自己的看法。

我是支持B的。其实原文是典型的由现象推原因，现象有两个，原因也有两层。

先简化原文：

现象1： record buyers多了； 现象2：concert goers少了

原因：第一层：因为喜欢record（所以买的人多）

          第二层： 因为不喜欢concert（所以去的人少了）

分析如下：

1。条件中仅仅给出两个现象，而结论却从两个现象中建立了某些因果关系，所以首先要那这两个现象联系起来，即record buyers和concert goers之间，concert goers少了，是因为record buyers不去concert

2。排他因，对什么排他因呢？

      首先，第一层关系，买record人多是因为喜欢record，不是因为去不了concert （don't have the option）才转而买record。

      然后，第二层关系，去concert人少是因为不喜欢concert，不是因为去不了 （don't have the option or concert number decreases）

这样分析下来，能满足这两层排他因的只有B了。

顺便说一下C。C把因果倒置了，C排除的是因为人少concert才少，而不是排除因为concert少人才少。把C取非，因为去的人少了，concert也减少了。这只能说明现象2的后果，不能作为排他因。如果C把后面的in response to smaller audiences去掉，则可以作为假设，说明了1）买record人多不是因为没机会听concert；2）去concert人少不是因为concert少了

castnoshadow

LZ答案错了 官方答案是b