题目的问法：most seriously weakens the force of the evidence cited，问的是哪个选项能削弱引用的证据的说服力。题目中的the evidence cited是”Evidence to this effect comes from a study showing that the more social contact people report, the better their mental skills.“，所以要反驳的是个study的统计数据。驳斥统计数据一般是质疑数据样本的可靠性，选项B显示，这个研究的统计数据可能忽略了一些药物的副作用，服用这些药物会使得人不愿意去社交，如果这些人也在统计样本里边，就会使得统计结果不可靠。
RonPurewal wrote: are you sure that this is an official gmatprep question? while it's not wildly different from the official problems i've seen, it's not as "tight" (in terms of concision, diction, etc.) as most of those problems.
--
in any case, the main problem i see with choice (c) isn't a pronoun issue; rather, it's the participial modifier beginning with "having". if you write "...having won high praise under her command", the implication is that the paper had already won high praise by the time it moved into the highest echelon of american newspapers - an implication that is at odds with the intended meaning, and is absurd to boot (the watergate crisis was 10-11 years after the mentioned date of 1963).
（所以不要纠结C中it的指代问题）
--
there's really no pronoun issue with choice (a), because two of the "it"s are a special construction in which they don't really have single-word antecedents. for example if i write
it was surprising to me that you would say something like that,
this is proper english. if you want to get technical, you could say that the pronoun "it" stands for the entire noun clause "that you would say something like that", but it's easier just to think of this as a special construction.
in choice (a), "it was only after KG became..." and "it was under her command..." are both examples of this type of construction, so the remaining "it" is the only pronoun that really deserves serious consideration.
still, i agree with you that choice (a), while not strictly incorrect, suffers from sloppy writing.
这题光题目我都读了好几遍，最后注意到时态，才搞明白是个类比推理。
In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened ..... 完成时表明这个事情已经发生了。还有because it could not compete with Colson's中的it指的是每一个a new store。
题目的意思是：现在中心地段的折扣小店因为搞不过S折扣大商场，在未来五年都会关门，但是这些小店铺也不会空多久。（因为有个先例），在非折扣商场C开门后的五年时间里，被C挤掉的那些小店的店铺，都有新的小店开张。
类比推理weaken的话找不同点：B选项，现在情况变了，当年C是个非折扣店，被挤掉的小店铺还可以开开折扣店，但是现在这些小店都已经是折扣店了，新开的S商场又是个折扣商场，所以这些小店倒闭以后怕是要空着了。
方案推理
题目： 提高最低薪水不会造成失业。雇主说员工薪水涨了，我只能少雇几个人了，所以会造成失业。
A. 原来要在寻找和维持那些低于最低薪水的职位上的困难=最低薪水的涨幅。-->花钱买舒坦，员工数目不会减少，不会失业。
B. 提高最低薪水但不涨福利。-->还是多花了钱
C. 如果考虑通膨，现在新提出的最低薪水还没有当年提出现在正在用的这个最低薪水高。-->这个不重要
D. 现在拿的是最低薪水的员工会要求涨薪。-->更费钱了，得少雇几个人。
E. 很多雇主开出来的薪水有的是最低薪水，有的也高与最低薪水。-->正常现象，不是所有的人都是最低薪水。
a cycle for personal computer users in which personal computer users, especially corporate consumers, are replacing their PC's with more powerful models has begun.
观察两个划线部分可以发现，其中一个personal computer users必然是赘余的。
扫描二维码，直接登录
题目的问法：most seriously weakens the force of the evidence cited，问的是哪个选项能削弱引用的证据的说服力。题目中的the evidence cited是”Evidence to this effect comes from a study showing that the more social contact people report, the better their mental skills.“，所以要反驳的是个study的统计数据。驳斥统计数据一般是质疑数据样本的可靠性，选项B显示，这个研究的统计数据可能忽略了一些药物的副作用，服用这些药物会使得人不愿意去社交，如果这些人也在统计样本里边，就会使得统计结果不可靠。