如何读CR的段子?

偶花了很长时间做RC, 到现在终于有了一点点提高. 知道如何读框架和定位. 可是到了逻辑的阅读, 我就很茫然. 经常是盯着题目看半天, 也无从下手. 看了很多NN介绍说, 边读边把前提和结论推出来. 可是我不懂怎样推. 有时看到很明显的提示词才知道.

象这题, 可否跟我将一下, 你是怎样做和想的.谢谢!

Although part of the ivory available on world markets was taken from wild elephants that were killed illegally, some ivory is derived from sources that nearly all nations define as legal, such as elephants that have died natural deaths.  The world's few remaining wild elephant herds, therefore, are not endangered when thouse buying ivory at wholesale make a serious effort to limit their purchases to such legal ivory.

The argument above depends on the assumption that

A.  wholesale buyers attempting to limit their purchases to legal ivory can reliably distinguish legal from illegal ivroy

B. the demand for products made from legal ivroy will continue to grow in the near future

C.there are currently fewer wholesale sources of legal ivory in the world than there are illegal ivroy

D. wholesale buyers of ivory products are generally unaware of the reasons for the dwindling world supply of ivory

E. a continued supply of legal ivory is ensured because elephants reproduce in captivity.

给我讲讲你做assumption题的思路吧. 我看CXD的思路, 很明白, 可就是到自己做的时候, 用不上.   谢谢.

1. 关于读段落：简单的讲，段落分两部分：PREMISES和CONCLUSION。对有指示词的，找出结论的指示词，该句为CONCLUSION，其他为PREMISES。没有指示词的，假设某句为指示词，然后看看其他句是否都指向该句，直到找到结论句。不过一般看多就知道结论句，不许这末复杂。

2。该段CONCLUSION为： The world's few remaining wild elephant herds, therefore, are not endangered when thouse buying ivory at wholesale make a serious effort to limit their purchases to such legal ivory. 指示词为THEREFORE。原文其他为PREMISES

3。关于假设的思路，很难几句话概括。不过总体上讲，假设选项是原文结论的必要条件。所以可以用DENIAL TEST。即假如选项是错的，加到原文中，则结论推不出。假设题答案有两种，一种是填补推理中的GAP，即推理中的概念跳跃。另一种是排除削弱结论的可能性。

4。做题时，先根据原文结论，排除无关的选项，剩下几个用第三点的方法去选出最总的答案。

5。将A取非（DENIAL TEST），即不能分清合法与不合法。则结论不能成立。所以为答案。

HI, xiaoy

Here are some of my thoughts that might be helpful for you. I pretyy much agree with Lawyer-1's ideas. First of all, you have to identify the premise and the conclusion. There might be several kind of assumption questions.

1) there is  a shift of scope between the premise and conclusion. For, eg. there is one LSAt assumption question, the author talks about new workers in the premise but about inexperienced workers in the conclusion. So you can see, there is a shift of scope. To justify the argument, we must argue that new workers must be inexperienced workers.

2) another type is to exclude alternative choices. The usual format is like this: A causes B, therefore if we limit the occurance of A, we can limit B greatly. Here you have to eliminate some possibel alternative choices. For example, there are no other reasons for the occurance of B.

3) another possible type is like the one you posted above. We muct justfy that the conclusion is possible, that is the action is viable.

Asuumptions questions can be even more complicated. And I am still working it.