新信息是否计入！

jidi

问下牛牛,什么时候应该考虑新信息！比如下面例题，C,D,E 因为新信息无关，就被刷了，可是也可以解释通啊！！求解！！

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

On the whole, scientists do their most creative work before age forty, a tendency that has been taken to show that aging carries with it a loss of creative capacity. An alternative explanation is that by age forty most scientists have worked in their field for fifteen or more years and that by then they have exhausted the opportunity for creative work in that field. Supporting this explanation is the finding that ______.

Athe average age of recipients of scientific research grants is significantly greater than forty  

Ba disproportionately large number of the scientists who produce highly creative work beyond age forty entered their field at an older age than is common

Cmany scientists temper their own expectations of what they can achieve in their research work by their belief that their creativity will decline as they age

Dscientists who are older than forty tend to find more satisfaction in other activities, such as teaching and mentoring, than they do in pursuing their own research

Ethere is a similar diminution of creativity with age in nonscientific fields, such as poetry and musical composition

alzn2765

“新信息”不能乱用啊！

比如因果推理加强，因--->果 的逻辑链已经非常完整了，此时“新信息”的引入很可能起的都是削弱的作用。比如：
小A说：因为事件A.，所以事件B
小B反驳说：你忽略了与事件A同时发生的事件C，如果考虑到事件C的影响，那么事件B不一定发生。

因为A--->B已经很完整了，如果不考虑因果倒置的可能性，进入一个之前被“忽略”的“事件C”与事件A共同作为前提，导致事件C无法发生；甚至直接给个“事件C”作为另一个结果，都是可能的。此时因为原推理的逻辑是完整的，要想削弱他只能引入“新的信息”。

如果是队友逻辑链完整的推理，引入“新信息”加强也是不太可能的。这就好比看推理小说，作者把案件描述完之后，你死活想不到凶手是谁，但是侦探易如反掌找出真凶。一问，才知道侦探看到谁干的了，但是没告诉你。你看完是不是一万个草泥马奔过去的感觉？
所以，对于逻辑链完整的推理，不管是因果还是果因，引入“新信息”一般不可能加强。

这道题给出了“因”做结论，让你找一个“果”来做前提，同时这个“因”跟之前的铺垫的作为对比的“因”是相反的，你不找“新信息”怎么办？原有信息已经有了一个完整的逻辑链：scientists do their most creative work before age forty---->aging carries with it a loss of creative capacity。现在作者给你一个相反的“因”，让你找“果”来支持他，你能用原有信息吗？原有信息只能推出原有的因。此时，你只能找“新信息”来支持这个貌似相反的“因”啊！

果因推理找削弱：

前提（果）：scientists do their most creative work before age forty+未知的果
结论（因）：by age forty most scientists have worked in their field for fifteen or more years and that by then they have exhausted the opportunity for creative work in that field

不用想什么逻辑关系或者CQ，就用正常的思维：
现在我告诉你：科学家重要的贡献都是40岁之前的，同时科学家从事这一行不能太长时间，不然就腻歪了。这两个都是已知的。问你怎么办？要是我肯定回答：晚入行呗！越晚入行，到40岁之前从事科学研究的时间越短。

jidi

alzn2765 发表于 2015-9-23 18:30
“新信息”不能乱用啊！

比如因果推理加强，因--->果 的逻辑链已经非常完整了，此时“新信息”的引入很可 ...

太谢谢啦！解释太牛！在判断一条推理链是否环环相扣完整需首先spot 有没有logic gap也挺关键的。
我没有捉住这之间的因果关系去思考。就题论题，正确选项B，scientists who produce highly creative work beyong age forty, 这里beyond age 40，我觉得有点矛盾，即使我晚入行的，i still produce creative work beyond age 40。按理我应该within age 40. 这也是论题我不太解的地方.

alzn2765

jidi 发表于 2015-9-24 00:35
太谢谢啦！解释太牛！在判断一条推理链是否环环相扣完整需首先spot 有没有logic gap也挺关键的。
...

你这么想：
On the whole, scientists do their most creative work before age forty, a tendency that has been taken to show that aging carries with it a loss of creative capacity. An alternative explanation is that by age forty most scientists have worked in their field for fifteen or more years and that by then they have exhausted the opportunity for creative work in that field. Supporting this explanation is the finding that ______.

这里有应该有两个premise(绿色)，和一个Counter Conclusion（黄色）和一个Conclusion（红色）。
其中premise是事实，我们一定不能驳斥事实。GMAT默认事实一定为真。Conclusion是我们要证明的，一定也必须是真的。但目前根据已知信息是无法削弱Counter Conclusion的（现有逻辑并无明显flaw）。所以，我们要找的没说出来的这个premise，一定有两个作用：1. 削弱Counter Conclusion；2. 同时加强Conclusion。（所以才能说第一个explanation错误，第二个explanation是正确的）

所以正确答案要说两件事：1. aging不会造成loss of creative capacity；2. 无法做出贡献是因为入行时间太长了
现在我们不看选项，如果给我们一个机会去编写正确选项，我们应该写一个什么样的正确选项？
正确选项要说有一种情况是入行很晚（对应“2. 无法做出贡献是因为入行时间太长了”）的科学家在aging之后并没有loss of creative capacity（对应“1. aging不会造成loss of creative capacity”），对不对？

我们看B选项跟我猜测的正确答案相符吗？
B a disproportionately large number of the scientists（对应“有一种情况”） who produce highly creative work beyond age forty entered their field at an older age than is common