86. 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 collapsed¹ 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 exhausted².”
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 portends³ 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 insufficient⁴ to support the conclusion that Company A will suffer a fate similar to Company B’s. In fact, the similarities stated are irrelevant⁵ 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 mere⁶ 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 entirely⁷ 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.

上一篇：GMAT新黄金80题及范文(十二)c 下一篇：GMAT新黄金80题及范文(十三)b