Richard 770 逻辑答题讨论

鱼丸要考700

RichardVeritas 发表于 2017-10-22 20:45
加油！ GMAT考试是很具挑战性。单科突破时别的还得每天小量练习，要不来回不容易巩固。

语法也欢迎上我 ...

好的 那我单科每天也练习一些 免得手生


现在逻辑的话 主要错都是在700-800档的题目 正确率在60% 这样，700-800平均错4题，600-700平均错1题，考场上 第三阶段蒙了一些逻辑题，因为不是很有信心，觉得花了时间恐怕也做不对，但考场上觉得context 都蛮容易懂的，选项也没有很刁钻，甚至自己还觉得简单，但看到逻辑还是怕。。。我二战前复习其实暴力突破过逻辑，效果不显著，主要是chasedream上看资料，helr 也了解了一下，不过没完全理解，我觉得套路还是要有的，下一个阶段的学习不知道richard 有什么建议。

herb.yuan

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered.  Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.  These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious:  clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion.
B. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends.
C. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends.
D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is the position that the argument opposes.
E. The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument; the second is a conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim.大神好：我想来请教一道题，这面这道黑脸题完全没有思路，答案是A，我选的是C， 因为当时我看到画线前面是correctly,所以觉得后面的话是作者支持的， 看到wrong to draw the conclusion所以觉得后面是作者反对的。求大神解答呀～

herb.yuan

The information above, if accurate, argues most strongly against which of the following claims?    大神，像这个问题，问的到底是加强还是削弱呀，因为看到against有点搞不清了

RichardVeritas

鱼丸要考700 发表于 2017-10-22 21:38
好的 那我单科每天也练习一些 免得手生

什么是700-800档?
一个建议是要知己知彼。大家对彼（GMAT）都很了解了，但对自己问题有多了解？问题是哪？读题读不懂，读逻辑不敏感，不快，时间不够？
建议你选3-5道新题，掐时间做，做完后把每题做题过程仔细写下来。自己分析下为什么做对或做错，速度如何，是否最佳解题路径。这样才容易看出问题。琢磨，质量比反复量化做题重要。
如果你这么做，也欢迎贴上来，大家可以帮你一起分析

RichardVeritas

herb.yuan 发表于 2017-10-25 14:36
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in aut ...

黑体题要看懂作者的结论或观点。一般像这题一样，作者还会说出别的论点，然后用论据或进/反对，或退让。要看出每句话的作用
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered.  
这就是一个报告，没有观点在里面。
Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.  
这里作者用correctly，是一个让步。承认这么说是可以的。因为没有客观测试可以证明，我们无法知道哪些是谎报。这是一个退
These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious:  
这里however重要。作者在上面让完步后，进，指出这些commentators 不对的地方。不能由上面就说有一半是谎报。
clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
作者解释为什么他可以这么说。没有补偿的地方，真的受伤也没有动机去报。

总体读完，应该看出第二个黑体是作者反对的。而第一个黑体是那些commentators 用来draw 第二个黑体结论的。所以A正确。

我搜索这题时找到的是另一个版本，看下你会选哪个：
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. Presently; no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.

(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

(D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.

(E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.

鱼丸要考700

RichardVeritas 发表于 2017-10-25 23:04
什么是700-800档?
一个建议是要知己知彼。大家对彼（GMAT）都很了解了，但对自己问题有多了解？问题是哪 ...

好的

鱼丸要考700

想试着做一下上面那道题目

boldface 题目考查的是argument 的structure，在曼哈顿 critical reasoning 中有专门一章节在讨论这种题目，章节名字是structure-based questions。

我现在做这种题目的方法是 一边读题一边判断每一句话的role 是什么。role 分为premise 和conclusion background info。 我觉得boldface 题目不能只靠signal words 来解题，一定要把题干作为完整的一个论证过程来看待才会有正确的理解。 在论证中，一般有两种关系，一种是for 一种是against，for 就是support 方向一致的，而against 就是方向相反的，在看题目的时候我会判断premise 和conclusion 是一致的吗？有没有方向不同的结论或者premise。

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered.  Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.  These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious:  clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

如果是考试
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered.

第一句话 读下来陈述了一个report 的结论，是fact，不知道是premise 还是background information。
Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.

第二句话 argued 出现 很有可能是一个结论，但是是commentators 的结论，不是作者的结论，而且位置这么靠前 很有可能会被作者或者其他人diss。 观察这句话的内容，since no objective test so reports cannot be identified。 为什么要说这句话呢？ 往前文看 如果没有客观测试，那么compensation 跟 whiplash 这个病之间的逻辑关系 就不紧密了。

These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious:
these commentators are，however，wrong to draw conclusion that 这句话有很明确的作者观点， commentators 认为没有客观测试 所以reported injuries 有一半是很spurious，好 看不懂这个词，但是没关系。看到这里恍然大悟，原来commentators 前面说没有objective test 是为了支持他们自己的观点。 但是这个观点是wrong 的，那么按照逻辑来说， 一般的boldface 都很严谨，所以作者接下来要么就是要说why wrong，要么就是重新提出自己的观点。 所以说， 既然diss 了一定会有新premise +conclusion，或者至少把reason （premise）陈述清楚。 clearly 这里是像是在重新论述原因，但这句话比较模糊，（是因为spurious意思不太确定）先看选项啦。

The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion.  
很对啊！  conclusion 不就是那个wrong 的内容嘛

难点：首先premise 可以是opinion 也可以是fact 所以有的时候可能比较模糊，这种时候考察逻辑关系和signal word一起比较好；
其次是选项会比较绕，but 一开始读题干的时候想清楚逻辑关系是什么就不太容易错了。

现在重新看这道题目我觉得它的structure 是
premise-counterpremise-conclusion-premise

鱼丸要考700

herb.yuan 发表于 2017-10-25 14:36
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in aut ...

bold face 题不能光靠signal words 来判断
因为signal words 不一定按照套路出牌
而且我们的判断可能是错误的，比如correctly 作者确实想说它是对的 但是单纯作为premise 是正确的，忽略了逻辑上的作用也是不行的，所以一定要分析每句话的role

鱼丸要考700

觉得boldface题目是逻辑的基础

如果复杂的题目在structure上设置障碍 应该是很困难的，所幸，我在考试中碰到的题目 题干都比较清晰，不太会绕来绕去，所以我的弱点应该还是对于选项的辨析上。

鱼丸要考700

Kitchen magazine plans to license the use of its name by a line of cookware. For a magazine, licensing the use of its name for products involves some danger, since if the products disappoint consumers, the magazine's reputation suffers, with consequent reductions in circulation and advertising. However, experts have evaluated the cookware and found it superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen. Therefore, Kitchen can collect its licensing fee without endangering its other revenues.

The argument above assumes which of the following?
ANo other line of cookware is superior to that which will carry the Kitchen name.
BKitchen will not license the use of its name for any products other than the line of cookware.
CMakers of cookware will not find Kitchen a less attractive advertising vehicle because the magazine's name is associated with a competing product.
DConsumers who are not regular readers of Kitchen magazine will be attracted to the cookware by the Kitchen name.
EKitchen is one of the most prestigious cooking-related magazines.

重新看这道题目
我曾经纠结的b 如果使用negation 法则来判断
如果给了其他产品，最后revenue 的变化也是不知道的，有可能增加有可能减少

看c 其实还觉得不是一个好选项，如果find less attractive， 所以这里又有了一个断层，选项没有明说，对方可能不会选择这家杂志吗？ 那therefore 的结论确实达不到了

重新审视，如果我出题目的话，会选择从best quality 就不会dissatisfy customer 这个角度来出。（最好的产品也是有complaints的不是吗？）而且是跟杂志内部的cookware在比较也不是跟所有的cookware 比较。所以没选出正确答案 应该也是因为题目的思路跟我不同吧。

这个题干的结构是
background info-premise-premise-conclusion
assumption：products superior to all other cookware advertised in Kitchen will not disappoint consumers；makers will choose the magazine for licensing