关于Argument 1的一个问题

谦虚的小公鸡UID: 2961678

1. The following appeared in a memorandum written by the vice president of Nature’s Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other health-related products.

“Previous experience has shown that our stores are most profitable in areas where residents are highly concerned with leading healthy lives. We should therefore build our next new store in Plainsville, which has many such residents. Plainsville merchants report that sales of running shoes and exercise clothing are at all-time highs. The local health club, which nearly closed five years ago due to lack of business, has more members than ever, and the weight training and aerobics classes are always full. We can even anticipate a new generation of customers: Plainsville’s schoolchildren are required to participate in a ‘fitness for life’ program, which emphasizes the benefits of regular exercise at an early age.”


我想问这是不是个问题：其中有一句提到，Plainsville的商家报告说运动鞋和运动衣的销售处于历史高点。目前已经知道我们的商店没在这个地方经营，这个提供情报的商家是否与我们的商店解盟并不清楚，那么这个商家提供这个情报是否可信，是否有某种阴谋也不清楚。

SpriteTCUID: 2765113

你想太多了啦！！！你就把它当可信的情报来源就好~

yangyoUID: 2870765

嗯，童鞋不能太钻空子了，还是要平常的这种找错的思维的，我认为可以说：运动鞋和运动衣的销售处于历史高点不错，但是这个跟开的健康产品的店是否盈利有什么关系呢，本身商品的性质不同，大家喜好不同，不能认为会买运动鞋运动衣的人就很喜欢健康产品的。差不多就是这种想法啦，拙见，呵呵~~

谦虚的小公鸡UID: 2961678

4# yangyo

喔喔，这个是该文典型的一个问题

蜥蜴也飞UID: 2894889

lz头像 真给力 呵呵 好逼真啊
还是抓重点吧。。。呵呵 共勉

mq891116UID: 2859635

今天看到一个老帖子，举了一个例子来说明这个问题的。
就比如你写了一篇毕业论文，结果答辩时让人家一上来就把你的动机啊，数据来源是不是捏造的啊批判一番，而不是和你在逻辑层面辩论，你是什么感受？应该还是在充分相信笔者的动机，简单调查的情况下，利用逻辑的问题推倒他，这样才最有说服力。

谦虚的小公鸡UID: 2961678

7# mq891116

逻辑分析，喔喔，有理！