谢谢斑竹,很有启发---“这里的flaw是要求对推理链找寻推理破绽,而不是把解释本身作为推翻的对象。即,1.承认解释的存在,且解释本身就是我们寻找错误的对象。2.不能推翻解释,说解释不该存在。” “我们要做的是,找出解释的错误点,而不是否定解释或去换一个解释。” --- 可是不久我又迷惑了 OG10版16题的答案D--- 居然不是指出flaw, 而是去纠正flaw,这是ETS的疏忽吧,还是我教条了 16. During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis the those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian. Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above? A. Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United State in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas B. Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths C. Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces。 如果把D改写成以下,似乎就完美了 改写D: Comparing total numbers of deaths rather than comparing death rates per thousand members of each group 再问gonghao NN, FLAW题如何下手,指出FLAW的方式或方向有几种?ETS 出FlAW题的原则似乎因题而变,自相矛盾,别的 logic 题型相比起来解题思路要清晰多了。 |