OG13 107题，不能理解啊，求解答！！大家给点意见啊！万分感激！！

hq304744879

107. Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five 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 five 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 five 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.

lukrenee

解释部分的意思：题干中的arguement的逻辑是建立在两个case相似，可进行比较的基础上，只要能证明两个case不可比，则可削弱此逻辑推理。选项B指出在colson的案例中nondiscount的店导致了周围的店关闭后被discount的店取代，而在spendless的案例中，这个需求（对折扣店的需求）不再存在，因此两案例不可比。
这个是解释部分的意思，我自己的理解是：
colson案例中，nondisctount店关门，discount店取而代之；而在spendless案例中，本来就是discount店，不一定有比discount更吸引人的业态能够在那里成功，所以未必旧店关门后会比新店取代。
希望帮到你。

henrywang916

我的理解是：第一句话里面很快有新开的店把空地填了，是结论。怎么weaken结论呢？如果能用例子证明了既不会再有discount store开，也不会有non-discount store开，就可以。
那现在分析第二句提供的fact情景：第一种情况，如果non-discount store因为C的竞争关了不久又会有non-discount store开的话，证明当地人有一种不怕死的精神；同样的逻辑成立的话，用到结论里面，当地人对S的竞争也是不怕死，还会继续有discount store新开，把空地填了，是strengthening；
第二种情况（也就是B答案)，如果non-discount store因为C的竞争关了不久就不会再有non-discount store开的话，而以后都是开的劈开竞争的discount store的话，证明当地人缺乏一种不怕死的精神，选择避开比自己更强大的竞争对手和市场；那就带来，结论里面的情景下，当S开了后，由于S的竞争一些discount store关门后，当地人也会承认失败避开原有discount store的市场，不会再开discount store；（由于前提里面C的竞争，也不会再开non-discount store），所以就没有人来开店了，空地就一直空着，是weakening。

xuzhuo8837863

107. Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five 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 five 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 five 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.

-- by 会员 hq304744879 (2012/9/7 0:41:22)

甭看他的解释，考场上用不着，一分半钟一般是想不通逻辑关系的，只看是否相关
A 客户被期待。。。主观，错
B，说开店的问题，地方范围也对，留着
C,店的数量与过去的数量对比，原文说新店会开张因为没竞争，无关
D,人的数量问题，自己只用通过联想才能与原文连上，主观，错
E，卖的东西的是什么，原文没有说，错


只剩下B，B为什么对 不知道，其他四个一定错。模模糊糊就可以在短时间内做完，且不用怎么想

DeliciaAn

请看这个帖子的7楼：http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-401022-1-1.html
解释的很好。
是类比削弱题，主要是找类比过程中的不同之处，然后削弱。

hq304744879

对了答案给的是B。
    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 five years. But those locations will not be vacant long, for new stores have replaced all those that closed because of the opening five years ago of a Colson’s nondiscount department store.
 
    Reasoning The question is which option would most weaken the argument? The 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.

hq304744879

看了答案解释还是不怎么理解，大家给点意见 啊！！谢咯～～

chenmuhan5

同求这道题，我也一直没看懂

MichelleLXN

想请问一下，第二句直接说In the five years…与第一句之间也没什么衔接，怎么能看出作者是在暗示由后面的case推出前面的case，即:由Colson非折扣店挤垮其他店后新开了一家店,推出Goreville折扣店挤垮其他店后也会有新店开张呢？读完题看不出这层推理比较的关系就更别说削弱这层关系了是不是我自己水平太弱了。。。

秀皓

想请问一下，第二句直接说In the five years…与第一句之间也没什么衔接，怎么能看出作者是在暗示由后面的case推出前面的case，即:由Colson非折扣店挤垮其他店后新开了一家店,推出Goreville折扣店挤垮其他店后也会有新店开张呢？读完题看不出这层推理比较的关系就更别说削弱这层关系了是不是我自己水平太弱了。。。

-- by 会员 MichelleLXN (2012/9/15 15:17:10)

第二个5年是说C开张5年后的情况。第一个5年是对S开张后的情况的预期。这两个5年是为了在时间上两个case比较similar。只可惜这两个店是不一样的，所以不能比啊。

bubuuuu

ls的可以的。。