gmat逻辑讲究论据的有效性,而不是充分性。some people 没有服用,反过来就all people 都服用,是对题目的削弱,这就够了,不需要讨论some people到底是哪一部分人,是没得性病的人,还是得了其它病的人。 uustar这点分析的很好,我想了解:“gmat逻辑讲究论据的有效性,而不是充分性”这个原则是目前的共识么?怎么理解?有没有更多的举例?谢谢! 像这道题: 22. In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North American paid its reporters an average salary paid by its principle competitors to their reporters. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified, since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters’ salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.
Which one of the following, if true about the newspaper in 1992, most seriously undermines the justification offered by the executive?
A. Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principle competitors. B. Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years. C. The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s. D. The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors. E. The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.
参考答案:B 思路:否定low salaries is fully compensated by training A:与结论无关 B:10年工作经验表示training的作用不大。 C:与结论无关。 D:与结论无关。 E:与结论无关。 评论:此题较难,只能用排除法作。正确选项也比较含糊,需要推理,这种题在gmat中出现的不多。 我同意选B选项,但是我认为B选项不是充分的,如果这些人虽然工作了10多年,但是仍然需要training(比如最updated 行业发展,新技术等等),那么compensated by the valuable training 也是成立的。我在想,如果有一个选项是这样阐述的:reporter的文章好需要人的写作天赋和一些与生俱来的新闻敏感性 那么这个选项完全推翻了training的价值,比B选项更具有说服力。 我自己随便想的,大家怎么看?
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-2-15 13:42:38编辑过] |