[求助]OG看了3遍，题目无形中都背下来了，怎么办？

gina_xinyue · 发表于 2007-9-6 12:00:00

20天就考试了

我之前黄色的OG11第一遍做题，第二遍看了书后解释分析了题目，第三遍没有做，而是看了一下。但是效果不是很好，没有理出自己的思路。我只是分析了题目的类型，条件结论之类，关于选项也是，我看了书后每个选项的解释，感觉只是明白，还不能完全掌握ETS的思路。

我再次看OG的时候，就出现了一个很严重的问题，就是我发现我只要一看到这个题，就马上知道它说得是什么，然后正确答案也就出来了，甚至关于这个正确答案的书后解释我都大概记得。我强迫自己去推理，但是发现脑海中全是以前写下的关于这题的推理。我也不知道怎样形容，好像就是我只是在机械浮现原来写的东西，而没有了思考的空间。在复习中，我并没有仔细的把每道题都分类总结，只是在每道题旁边标上是什么题型，关于这道题是怎么推理的，我不知道是不是我没有把各类的不同的方法总结好还是没有挖掘到更深层次的东西？

昨天特别打击我，我一直在看黄色的OG，紫色的我想用来检验一下我看的成果，在看了近三遍黄色OG以后，我昨天做了紫色OG，结果发现正确率极低，而且有很多题看完答案都非常茫然，好像我的思路和ETS的还有距离，每次都是看完答案，就机械接受关于这题的ＥＴＳ的推理方式，但是好像完全不能举一反三，我现在都急的不行了。。。

我现在主要是想请教ＯＧ题目都记得了怎么办？我应该用怎样的方法来继续研读OG？

希望大家，众NN们能给我建议，谢谢！

gavin1911 · 发表于 2007-9-6 16:22:00

既然这样就做GWD啦....边做边套用OG的总结

Whitney · 发表于 2007-9-8 00:59:00

I am not NN, but my CR improved a lot recently. Here is my suggestion:

1) CR is Critical Reasoning. It
tests the logical relationship, NOT the detail of topics in the argument. -- So the first thing is to find out the logical structure of argument. How this argument is constructed?
2) To find out logical structure, you have to recoganize the premise (Evidence) and conclusion within the argument. Just keep in mind that Premise + Assumption => Conclusion. You can see how important the assumption is because you must assume that Premise and Conclusion are facts, so it is likely that only assumption can be changed. You can strengthen/weaken the argument by targeting assumption.
3) Then you can construct the logical structure or map of argument, which usually very simple.
For example,
Premise: A (which can a word, a phase, a sentence, or a pragraphy.)
Premise: B leads to C (Sometime, several conclusions C+D+E..);
Conclusion: A leads to C;
Assumption? A=B or A belongs to B or A's situation = B's situation
4) Since the logical map is relatively simple, the actual questions have a lot of nasty things to prevent us to recognize premises, conclusions, and assumptions.

Here is my suggestion to you.
Read only argument and question stem. Don't read the answers.
Write down the logical map; i.e. Premise, Conclusion; assumption.
Write down how the argument is constructed. For example, Conclusion, then explain it by cite an example.
Try to simplify the argument by throw out junks/Traps so you will know what is trap looks like.
Ask yourself what assumption/condition is required to strenghten or weaken the argument. Is there any other assumption? Write them down. Keep in your mind the following: What/ Who (Same scope?) When (All conditions are identical bewteen two time points?) Where (Same location?) How (Same methods?) Part or All?

You will see when you stripe the question to its barebone, it usually takes less than 20 s to get the right answer.
Practice both difficult and simple questions. Save 5~10 sec on every easy question may be easier than solve a really tough one. Time = Higher Score.
Practice and practice. (You can do it whenever you have time, just keep a folder to collect all you notes.)
After several days, you will see the results.

sesame · 发表于 2007-9-9 04:53:00

写得非常好!!请教whitney辨别premise,conclusion,assumption的方法?

Whitney · 发表于 2007-9-11 07:53:00

Sesame,
Read the argument carefully! Keep an eye on words indicating cause-and-effects such as, therefore, because, (in order) to, etc, and keep an eye on verb tenese indicating past (fact), preenst (fact), and future (maybe or maybe not). You have to find them by logical relationship. Premise (evidence or statement) is a fact, which is a description of a condition, a situation, or a fact. It can a word, a phrase, a sentence, or even a paragraph. Conclusion is also a statement. Sometimes, since premise + Assumption => conclusion, there can a sequential order between premise and conclusion. That is the events described in premise come first, that events in conclusion come later. Once again, the key is logical relationship.

For example,
GWD4
Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s.
Q: Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

From the first sentence, we know that things occurred in following order:
Competition of SpendLess to discount stores=>the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years=>those locations will not stay vacant for long. Therefore, "Competition of SpendLess to discount stores" is premise, and "the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years + those locations will not stay vacant for long" are conclusion.
Second sentence was evidence because it talked somethings already have happened.

Logical structure:
A will lead to B and C because D, which is similar to A, has led to B' and C' [I used B' and C' because there is scope change. discount store (white horse) versus store (horse)]. You see, you can describe the argument is a short sentence.

Premise 1: A (Competition of SpendLess to discount stores)
Premise 2: D (Competition of Colson’s) => B (closing of nearby stores) + C (a new discount store has opened at the location of every store..that closed);
Conclusion: A =>B (Nearby stores will be closed) + C (those locations will not stay vacant for long);
The assumption is: A's situation is identical to D's situation. (A=D)
To weaken the argument, attack the assumption.

[求助]OG看了3遍，题目无形中都背下来了，怎么办？

[求助]OG看了3遍，题目无形中都背下来了，怎么办？

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()