原题：The following appeared as part of a business plan by the Capital Idea Investment firm.
“Currently more and more books are becoming available in electronic form — either free of charge on the Internet or for a very low price per book on CD-ROM.* People who would not pay bookstore prices will now have access to whatever book they want from their home or work computers. Consequently, literary classics are likely to be read more widely than ever before: 72 percent of those responding to a recent online survey said they would read books in electronic form, and 81 percent said they believed that reading classic works was important. Given this newly developing market, we should invest in E-Classics, a new company that sells electronic versions of literary classics.”
*A CD-ROM is a small portable disc capable of storing relatively large amounts of data that can be read by a computer.
1. More accesses to cheaper books do not necessarily guarantee the desire to read classics.
2. the survey is doubtful
3. It is hard to make profit when there are so many E-books available on the net.
In this article the author concludes that literary classics are likely to be read more widely than ever before. The author’s line of reasoning is that the availability of books in electronic form and access of books via the Internet has removed the two major impediments that prevented people from reading literary classics, namely price and convenient access. Since books can be accessed from home or work via computers at little or no cost, the author believes that significant changes in the society will occur. Specifically, the author maintains that access to literary classics will affect the public’s taste in reading and will result in a more learned and cultured reading audience. The author’s argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
First, the author assumes that price and convenient access are the primary reasons people fail to read literary classics. While this is a tempting assumption, it is not obviously true. For example, other reasons, such as lack of interest in these books or awareness of them on the part of the reading public could equally account for the failure to read them. Consequently, it may turn out that, contrary to the author’s expectation, the number of people who read literary classics is unaffected by their increased availability and lower cost.
Second, while it may be the case that access to books at affordable prices has increased as a result of new technology, the author provides no evidence for the assumption that access to literary classics at affordable prices has increased as well. On the face of it, this assumption seems innocuous; however there may be reasons that prevent literary classics from being marketed in the fashion described by the author. For example, the inability to secure the requisite permissions to reproduce these books in electronic form, or the lack of commercial interest in marketing them via the Internet could undermine the author’s assumption.
In conclusion, this argument is not convincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide evidence for the assumption that price and accessibility are the main reasons people fail to read literary classics. Additionally, evidence would be required for the assumption that access to literary classics will be increased.
原题：The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintains better supervision of all employees.”(2)
1. causal oversimplification: It is imprudent to conclude that the establishment of the field offices is the only reason explaining the decline of the profit.
2. all things are equal: The success of the centralization of the past does not guarantee the applicability in the future.
3. either-or-or choice: The author assumes that the centralization and the establishment of field offices are mutually exclusive alternatives, there is no middle ground between they two. In fact, we can have the field offices under centralized control.
In this argument the author concludes that the Apogee Company should close down field offices and conduct all its operations from a single, centralized location because the company had been more profitable in the past when all its operations were in one location. For a couple of reasons, this argument is not very convincing.
First, the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible cost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies.
Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more profitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization the only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line (帐本底线) such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense account monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy buying policies and other wasteful spending. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to diminishing profits, this argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (decreasing profits) follows another (decentralization), the second event has been caused by the first.
In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion that Apogee should close field offices and centralize, this author must provide a thorough cost-benefit analysis of available alternatives and rule out factors other than decentralization that might be affecting current profits negatively.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology GRE: 1353 GMAT:720 Stanford University (CA) GRE: 1354 GMAT:720 University of California–Berkeley GRE: 1353 GMAT:707 Georgia In
GMAT考试是美国管理专业招收研究生委员会主办和负责指导的考试, 其英文全称是Graduate Management Admission Test。GMAT考试的科目包括会计学、经济学、管理学、普通管理、生产管理、行政管理、