一试身手--4道CR

freegirl

从来没有想过那是causal 而不是casual. 高！

说说 2,3, 好吗？

4. "that take three minutes or less to cook" 包括了microwave popcorn and other convenient microwave food products. 因为microwave popcorn sales already accounts of over 50% of the total sale of microwave food products, 所以 (d) 成立。

谢谢楼上的！

mindfree

2. I do not see how C is relevant here.

Again, you need to find the premises and conclusion of the argument first.

Premise: "prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on it own"

Conclusion: "therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research"

The reasoning is that peer review is the only way, then the peer review by the panel is a must. There is a gap, which A points out: there is no other way to peer review other than the panel. "Not A" = there is other peer review other then that by the panel. Then the argument is not holding since if other peer reviews exist, it renders the review by the panel unnecessary.

mindfree

3. B is not right. Again, the premise and conclusion are the key.

In choosing B, you misunderstood the conclusion. "consumer can reduce ... by picking plastic container with lower number" indicates a reasoning similar to "if consumer pick low number plastic, they can reduce..."

So no matter whether in reality consumers know there is a number on the plastic or not, if they follow the suggestion, they can reduce...

B will be right if the conclusion is about whether this measure will actually work or not.

C is right because it counters the argument by saying all plastic will eventually be low grade pastic and nonrecyclable. So no matter consumer use lower number or higher number plastic, all this plastic will be higher number eventually, and therefore will not reduce the waste.

Let me know if you get it or not

kathy72

谢谢mindfree 总教头, 听您这一分析思路清晰多了.

我发现GMAT的逻辑对题意的领会太重要了.

第2题我读题时就理解错了, 以为杂志只能出版给专家看, 专家看完了再将研究结果公诸于众.其实真正的过程是  研究结果--panel(pear review)--publication . 这样一来, C 成了无关选项, 因为研究结果公布后公众从什么渠道得知已不重要了.

第3题也是对题意的理解问题, 关键是in the long run, 因为使用标号低的塑料, 短期来说可以减少垃圾, 长期来说, 它们最终会变成不可循环的垃圾, 正如MINDFREE 大牛所分析的, 因此C才是正确答案. 而且B最明显的错误是many people (我发现通常以此开头的答案都是错误的), 因为many people如果只是一小部分人的话, 他们的行为是难以影响总的后果的. 如果是most people 还差不多.

mindfree

Regarding 3, I am not sure whether we agreed on the same thing or not...

I do not think that "many people" matters here. Again, the key is "can".

Let me give you an extreme example:
Pollution is mostly caused by emmision of automobile. So we can stop pollution by disallowing driving automobiles.

To weaken this argument, you can not say "It is impossible to stop people from driving cars (as the economy will suffer or people will suffer etc.)". The reason is that you have to stay within the reasoning in the argument, which is the causal relationship between automobile and pollution only. Anything else such as economy is irrelevant.

So the only counter argument should read like: stop all the automibile will make people run around, blowing dust into the air and eventually cause more pollution.

Let me know whether you like this explanation.

kathy72

mindfree, 是不是应该这样认为, 文中告诉你的是一个事实, 是不能被否定的. 例如, 文中说人们可以通过识别标号来减少垃圾, 那么就已经假定了人们是能够识别的. 如果要反驳它的话只能是从割断它和结论之间的联系来反驳.

twelvecolors

A
A
C
D
btw, kathy, i think what u said is right!

mindfree

Right. That is one part. The other is that you need to stick to relevancy. As you can tell, the line between relevancy and irrelevancy is very thin. For example, if the conclusion of this question is that waste will be able to reduced after this measure is taken. Now the feasibility is a factor and B will be right.

freegirl

Mindfree,

非常精彩！ 还有一个问题是关于第二题的：
我理解的文中的意思：their publication in a medical journal -->prepublication peer review --> public to people
therefore, if people can access the publication in a medical journal before the peer review
occurring, the conclusion is weakened.
我的错误在那呢？

kathy72

freegirl, you should understand the process as follows:

a medical research submited to a medical journal--> peer review (prepublication)--> public to people(publication).  After the reserach is made public, people may know it by reading the magazine or other chanels, who cares? it isn't the point of this reasoning.

in addiction, you misunderstand what (c) said, it did not said that people can not have access to the journal( before peer view).