请问Mindfree一个问题？其他NN也帮忙看看吧！

bigmouse

你说的out of scope 是什么意思？以及怎样去排除2个选项中的另一个干扰项，看了你为别作的解答，很有启发，但还不是很明白你的思路？请多指教！谢谢了！

mindfree

Good question...

Out of Scope can cover an array of fallacies in GMAT CR. Simply put, an out of scope choice is irrelevant bacause it falls out of the reasoning in the argument.

Let me give you a example very commonly seen:
People needs to pay for their parking tickets. So city can increase revenue by asking police to give out more parking ticket. So what can weaken the argument?

The wrong answer can be: giving out more parking tickets will change the people's exisiting pattern of parking, creating stress to many people and affect their health adversely.

The reason is that the argument is about the causal relationship between more tickets and revenue increase. The answer must weaken the link between the two. Other factors such as human right, health, traffic conditions, etc., unless proven to have a direct relationship with increasing revenue, will be out of scope and irrelevant.

So if I add some new information to the answer, it will be right. I can say that the stress will render people less productive, resulting in less gross tax production and tax income for the city. Now there is a link that connect the answer with the argument. And it is the right answer.

Another wrong answer can be: police do not have enough hands to give out more tickets. I explained this type of answer in another post. Remember, this answer can be right if the question is different.

bigmouse

能否指点一下，该如何准备逻辑题？挺小安说，你以前发过贴子，但我就是没找到！晕～～，可否把那个贴子告诉我，谢谢！

mindfree

Which one? I do not remember either

八戒

Thanks mindfree!

But I also have one question to bother you!Thanks advance!

Your example is perfect,but I have a different view about the wrong answer.

Another wrong answer can be: police do not have enough hands to give out more tickets.

In my view, this statement is the perfect choose.

This is a typical fallacy in CR.
For example, we can take some action to achieve the special goal.There is obvious link between the action and the special goal.We can block this link by two means.On the one hand, you just mentioned the first method.In other words, you  can directly broke this link. On the other hand, if the action is impossible, I think, we can not make any deduce.So , to some extend, this would be an appropriate answer!

Such as:

If we can dump the water of the Pacific Ocean, we will have all the most delicious fish.The reasoning is :dump the water of the Pacific Ocean--->have all the most delicious fish.No doubt, it is impossible to take this action.So , we can not have all the most delicious fish.I think that this will be a perfect answer.

What did you think about it?

Thanks for make it clear!

Appreciate any comments!

mindfree

It is a bit tricky. As I said, that answer can be perfectly right, depends on what the question is.

Whether it is possible to dump the water does not render the argument invalid. Even if it is impossible, when you dump the water, you can still achieve your goal.

I think that the key is "can" and "will". Another example: If you take a spaceship, you can see the Earth from the outer space. You cannot argue that it is impossible for you to ever be in a spacecraft. I do not think your argument will invalidate my argument.

What do you think?

dandan74

I disagree with "Mindfree" on this example. I think "police do not have enough hands to give out more tickets." could be a right answer. It directly breaks the logic link. My understanding of the line of reasoing is:
ask police to give out more tickets -> police indeed give out more tickets -> people have to pay tickets -> state gets more money out of tickets.  If the police cannot cite more tickets, then the first link will be broken.  What do you think? Morever, the first link is actually an assumption that has been made by the arguer.

八戒

Thank you!

You are right!

ETS just wants us to crack the reasoning of CR,not to mention the validity of the premise.
Even though the premise is impossible in reality , but if it happens,we can make the reasonable reasoning.

As you said, such consideration is a bit tricky!

dandan74

Yes, question like this one is very tricky. Even though I understand the line of reasoning by sitting here, I am not sure I can make the right choice during the test. Sometimes it's pure luck.
My understanding: "assumption" is the criticial thing ETS is testing. Weaken, support, evaluation, etc, all of those questions are testing if you understand the assumptions made by the arguer. Sad thing is I still cannot fully understand a lot of them.