关于批判性推理方法的运用，泣血求教！

云杉之歌 · 发表于 2016-7-16 12:54:15

  不少前辈推荐毕出的《批判性推理》，我看了之后感觉深受启发呀，觉得CQ这一套真的比有关无关那一套靠谱很多。毕出将题目分成大致六七个类，类比、相关因果、果因等，我个人理解核心在于将题目argue的类型弄清楚，从而根据不同的CQ来做题。

  但是问题来了，我在做题（OG还好尤其是GWD）时，常常觉得一些题目哪个类型都算不上，而且出现的次数还不少，于是就懵逼了，毕出的那套逻辑用不上，只能对着选项凭自己的逻辑感觉来选了，往往就选错了。

  所以在这里想请教一下，是我自己的原因没有理解好题目划分好类型，还是确实题目的范围有些超了毕出所罗列的？
  以几道题为例：

  1.Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread, and in the many centuries during which the ancient Egyptians made only unleavened bread, such yeasts must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally. The Egyptians, however, did not discover leavened bread until about 3000 B.C. That discovery roughly coincided with the introduction of a wheat variety that was preferable to previous varieties because its edible kernel could be removed from the husk without first toasting the grain.

  Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the two developments were causally related?

  我对这道题的梳理是：  埃及开始发酵面包与引进不用toast的wheat这件事同时发生，结论是二者有关系，问加强。到这里我就分不清这是毕出说的那种类型了，相关因果？又不像，相关因果是A与B正相关/负相关，结论是A导致B，问削弱，然后有四个CQ，但是这题就对不上了，既没有提到“导致”，问的也是加强而不是削弱。

  2.Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Researchers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.

  Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' hypothesis?

  这题先讲了是SV40/virus导致mesotheliomas这种病，然后给了一个实验结果作为证明（虽然这个证明有问题，到这里让人误以为是统计推理）但是后面却话风一转，让我们support说virus是从1960年被感染的疫苗里来的。然后.....就懵逼了.....（妈的好想吐槽题目本身逻辑就很怪），这道题的argument是啥？我连这个都不知道，更别说判断类型了....

  现在因为这几题扰得我对CQ法都产生怀疑了，虽然之前也用这种方法做对了不少题，但是假如某些地方会失灵，就让人抓狂了。。。泣血求CD的NN们指教！

关于批判性推理方法的运用，泣血求教！

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()