逻辑题困境，求大神指点迷津

chuck15

逻辑题难度到了中等以上，题目的问句会出现各种奇怪的问法，比如，

The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?


Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for discounting the evidence Perkins cites in arguing against the contention that being hunted by humans contributed to the North American extinction of woolly mammoths?


The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


这些奇怪的问法总是会占用思考的时间，有时候看不懂或者分析不对，就很容易做错题。现在做的逻辑题，错题很多都是中等或者难题，我感觉简单的逻辑题差不多是没有问题了，因为问句不会很复杂，逻辑链也不是很复杂，但是题目难度一到中等以上，就很难把握正确率。错误的原因：有时候觉得是不够仔细，有时候是没有真正读懂意思，但是时间有限又不能去仔细的读。有时候是真的没有分析出逻辑所在。

希望有同感的考友或者大神来讨论分析指导一下，目前这种情况该怎么处理。

L.M.

感觉这几个题都是debate或者evaluate的设问吧。
前两个题的文章可能是两个人在撕逼，这种题目当然要写长一点，要告诉我们要支持/反对谁的观点。（不然我也不知道该选啥2333）

比如第一个应该是要我们找反对productive measure的人的assumption（is based on...）
第二个应该是让我们反对Perkin的观点。Perkin是反对“猎杀导致猛犸消失的”，那这个题就是要支持“猎杀导致猛犸消失”，或者指出Perkin论证的错误。（这个确实绕）
第三个题应该是一个evaluation吧，注意它让我们评估的是为什么argument vulnerable。

我觉得，设问越长，那么出题的人希望我们评估的逻辑点越细致。。。这种情况确实得认真看题目。首先看是哪类的题目，然后在看要我们具体weaken/strengthen/evaluate具体那个观点/逻辑链。。。

chuck15

L.M. 发表于 2018-8-14 15:44
感觉这几个题都是debate或者evaluate的设问吧。
前两个题的文章可能是两个人在撕逼，这种题目当然要写长一 ...

首先，谢谢你的回复。

我贴的那3个你只有第二个判断对了，题目就是绕，但是他说清楚的显示是个weaken的题目，这种类型的题很多。

第一个，是describe the argument 的题目。（如果你看过曼哈顿的话）
第三个，是find the flaw

L.M.

chuck15 发表于 2018-8-14 16:52
首先，谢谢你的回复。

我贴的那3个你只有第二个判断对了，题目就是绕，但是他说清楚的显示是个weaken的 ...

Emmmmm...能把argument部分的文段也贴出来一下嘛。。。
单看问题我确实也是在猜。第二个“判断”对了是因为前几天刚做了那个题2333

chuck15

L.M. 发表于 2018-8-14 17:16
Emmmmm...能把argument部分的文段也贴出来一下嘛。。。
单看问题我确实也是在猜。第二个“判断”对了是因 ...

Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?

The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?

A. Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
B. The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
C. Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
D. The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
E. The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.


At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

A. some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
B. the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
C. a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
D. a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
E. with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

L.M.

这么一看确实是猜错了。。。。
不过第一个题也确实涉及到两种观点了，题目要求我们找出objection如何攻击原观点的方向，也就是“based on doubts about”（我下午瞎了没看到on doubts about）
原观点觉得“送信越多越有效率”，在提出质问之后，另一个观点（objection）说“如果更多信丢了呢？”，也就是质疑不考虑服务质量真的好吗。。。也就是D选项的on doubt about the quality… ignored

第三个题也做错了。。。而且看了材料后发现居然也是前几天做错的一个题。。。。这里给个大佬的解释吧。。。
https://forum.chasedream.com/for ... Prep%2B07%2BCR%2B17

整理错题去了

mandy1991

如果是难题有问题，一般有两个办法

1. 英语可以提高一些
如果英语阅读更快更准确，信息就会更加的清晰简洁，方便思考，也可以腾出更多时间做题

2. 总结
逻辑里比较难的题，很多会涉及到一些思维的方法，尝试着自己总结一下。比如楼主的第3题，这个题的核心就是在于好莱坞餐厅的顾客不是一般人（追星就是不一样），所以他们不会吃完就走。所以总结的点在于：某一类特定的群体，是否会符合大的趋势。同样的考点GMAT OG里面也有的。比如：
Normally, the pineal gland governs a person's sleep-wake cycle by secreting melatonin in response to the daily cycle of light and darkness as detected by the eye. Nonetheless, many people who are totally blind due to lesions in the visual cortex of the brain easily maintain a 24-hour sleep-wake cycle. So the neural pathway by which the pineal gland receives information from the eye probably does not pass through the visual cortex.

For purposes of evaluating the argument it would be useful to establish which of the following?

• AWhether melatonin supplements help people who have difficulty maintaining a 24-hour sleep cycle to establish such a pattern 分析该选项
• BWhether the melatonin levels of most totally blind people who successfully maintain a 24-hour sleep-wake cycle change in response to changes in exposure to light and darkness 分析该选项
• CWhether melatonin is the only substance secreted by the pineal gland 分析该选项
• DWhether most people who do not have a 24-hour sleep-wake cycle nevertheless have a cycle of consistent duration分析该选项
• EWhether there are any people with normal vision whose melatonin levels respond abnormally to periods of light and darkness
  

这个题的考点在于normally是一般人的情况，而这里blind people不是一般的人，所以不一定能延用normally的情况。

对于这种比较难的题，如果楼主愿意花时间分析，会发现GMAT考题之前很多的相似性，而且也可以锻炼自己的思维能力。

chuck15

mandy1991 发表于 2018-8-15 11:33
如果是难题有问题，一般有两个办法

1. 英语可以提高一些

是的，非常感谢你的回复！第一点语言基础的提升我一直在进行，因为考过试之后觉得gmat并没有想的那么简单。第二点总结逻辑规律之前的确疏忽了，没有想到这个。我也是最近几天才开始注重总结的。总之，非常感谢！