求解OG13 CR63

sqqing911029

A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool Company has recently claimed that the company is mismanaged,citing as evidence the company's failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products.It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive,but in this case it is clearly not justified.It is true that an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand,but in Burton's case it indicates no such thing.Rather,the increase in inventory in entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.In the argument given,the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A.The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes;the second provides evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed.
B.The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes;the second is evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed.
C.The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes;the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
D.The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes;the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence.
E.The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes;the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.




我不明白为什么the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole.请高人指教！

sqqing911029

自己顶一个~各位大神快来帮我啊

sqqing911029

求讲解

abjure

同求，讲解， 这题大家都懂了吗？

leslielles

im confused at this one too. i chose d instead

cuz i thought the mismanagement of company is cited as an evidence to support the company's failure to respond. therefore the first one should be evidence to the argument the author opposes to?

can anyone help explain here please?????

FFD2012

这题就是两个观点对比啊
作者说  有个人说B公司mis了 然后列了一个evidence  但作者说没有MIS  然后列出了作者自己的evidence （攻击前者的evidence）  
整个context的conclusion 是 没有MIS

abjure

神奇，隔了10天，自己就明白了，不知道自己脑子当时是不是被驴踢了

yttuobao

It is doubtful whether an investor's sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive,but in this case it is clearly not justified.
这句话是啥意思啊？