- UID
- 1294035
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2017-7-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
贴一个例题
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.
(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
(C) For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
(D) People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
(E) Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
逻辑链:
目标:政府想减少废弃
方案:要求家电被拆开回收。从市民收取拆开回收费用
两个细节方案比较:
1 卖电器时收费
2 回收电器时收费
作者说2更好,考虑到2鼓励市民推迟电器回收时间(来推迟交回收费时间)
找茬:
乍一看,好像挺严谨,没什么问题。可是问题是要我们weaken, 所以再细心衡量这个逻辑链的每一步。那可以看到方案2比1多了一个漏洞,就是假设市民们会去走正常渠道回收。
方案1钱是买时就扣了,没有这个漏洞。
方案2市民可能会想办法逃避,不走正常渠道回收也不付这个回收费。这样政府不能达到最终目标 - 想减少废弃。答案A正是指出这个漏洞。方案2这个漏洞在生活中也是非常实际的。
几个感想:
1. GMAT 出题并不是搞古怪逻辑。如果有这样感觉,可能是逻辑基本功不扎实,没办法看清楚逻辑链和漏洞。
2. 训练逻辑基本功很重要,是基本,可以和各样技巧性做题结合,帮助或相辅相成。
这个题如果一步一步细心衡量作者要从方案2到最终目标,可能经过几个逻辑孤岛,看到答案A时,我们应该可以看出它针对的是其中一个桥梁/假设,所以正确。
|
|