很多考生在面对
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily newspaper.
“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
日报的商业版：
公司a在视频游戏的硬件软件方面有很大的国际市场份额。公司b是这些产品的先锋，而且曾经一度是年收入120亿元的巨人，但在孩子们厌倦了它的系列产品后崩溃了。因此公司a也将失败，考虑到它的产品已经占据了那么多的美国家庭，对他的需求已经接近枯竭。
1， 类比错误。是否由share导致的。
2， A很可能生产出新的产品。
In this argument the author reasons that the failure of Company B portends a similar fate for Company A. The grounds for this prediction are similarities that exist between the two companies. The line of reasoning is that since both companies produce video-game hardware and software and both enjoy a large share of the market for these products, the failure of one is a reliable predictor of the failure of the other. This argument is unconvincing.
The major problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between Company A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion that Company A will suffer a fate similar to Company B’s. In fact, the similarities stated are irrelevant to that conclusion. Company B did not fail because of its market share or because of the general type of product it produced; it failed because children became bored with its particular line of products. Consequently, the mere fact that Company A holds a large share of the video-game hardware and software market does not support the claim that Company A will also fail.
An additional problem with the argument is that there might be relevant differences between Company A and Company B, which further undermine the conclusion. For example, Company A’s line of products may differ from Company B’s in that children do not become bored with them. Another possible difference is that Company B’s share of the market may have been entirely domestic whereas Company A has a large share of the international market.
In conclusion this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to show that there are sufficient relevant similarities between Company A and Company B as well as no relevant differences between them.
92. The following is taken from an editorial in a local newspaper.
“Over the past decade, the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially. Eleven years ago, Megamart charged 5 cents apiece for lemons, but today it commonly charges over 30 cents apiece. In only one of these last eleven years was the weather unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Evidently, then, citrus growers have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus fruit, and strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent them from continuing to inflate prices.”
当地报纸的社论：
过去的10年里，桔类水果的价格实际上上升了。11年前，Megamart每个柠檬要价5分，现在一般要价为30分一个。过去11年只有一年不适合桔类水果生长。显然，柑桔种植者应该对桔类水果价格过度上涨负责。为防止他们继续哄抬价格规范价格规定很有必要。
1， 小范围推大范围。
2， 忽略他因，是否只有一种因素导致价格上升——不适合生长。。。还有，比如环境保护，加工价格上升，人力成本上升，或者单纯的物价上涨。。。monetary inflation, increased distribution and labor costs, or alterations in supply and demand conditions
1， 柠檬缺乏代表性，或者说，柠檬有其特殊性，譬如柠檬都是进口的，比较贵;
2， 天气好不一定代表物价要低，因为种植柑橘的农民已经动用了可用的资源了，产量无法再多了;
3， 是否物价高就是农民肆意抬高的缘故，可能是dealers在其中的作用;
4， 政府是否要介入，虽然价格变贵了，但是targeted customers没有变化，对整个国民经济影响不大
In this editorial the author argues for the imposition of strict pricing regulations in order to prevent citrus growers from continued inflation of prices of citrus fruit. The need for such regulation is supported by the author’s contention that citrus growers have been unnecessarily raising prices of citrus fruit in the past. The evidence for this allegation is the fact that the price of lemons at Megamart has increased from 15 cents per pound to over a dollar a pound during the preceding 11-year period. The author maintains that this increase is unjustifiable because weather conditions have been favorable to citrus production in all but one of those years. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
First and foremost, the author assumes that the only factor that influences the price of citrus fruit is the weather. Other factors such as monetary inflation, increased distribution and labor costs, or alterations in supply and demand conditions are completely ignored as possible sources for the increase. The charge that citrus growers have unnecessarily raised prices can be sustained only if these and other possible factors can be completely ruled out as contributing to the price increases. Since the author fails to address these factors, the recommendation calling for strict pricing regulations can be dismissed out of hand as frivolous.
Second, the author assumes that the only way to combat increased prices is through government intervention. In a free enterprise system many other means of affecting the pricing of goods are available. For example, a product and thereby influencing supply and demand conditions of the commodity is an effective means of influencing the price of the product. In a free market economy the call for price regulation by the government should occur only when all other means to rectify the problem have been exhausted.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument it would be necessary to show that the only factor influencing the price increases is the growers’ desire for increased profits.