|
【搬运】来自BTG stacy的回答分析，（BF必错的我）希望大家一起受益~~： from：[size=14.0084px]http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/02/03/breaking-down-a-gmatprep-cr-boldface-problem Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. In hopes of gaining some indication of the fragments’ size, astronomers studied spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. These analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur after the fragments’ entry. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but many astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up. In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles? (A) The first presents a circumstance for which the astronomer offers an explanation; the second part is that explanation. (B) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion. (C) The first acknowledges a consideration that weights against the conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion. (D) The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that conclusion. (E) The first is a judgment advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.Okay, now that you’ve got an answer, we’re going to go back to the question stem and argument and forget about the answers for a moment. How do you identify the question type? What should you know about that question type before you even start to read the argument? What should you look for in the argument? What might your notes have looked like?
Reading the Question and ArgumentFirst, if you haven’t already, you may want to take a look at this article: Strategies for Critical Reasoning. As the article says, we read the question stem first. This is the question stem: “In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?”
The key identifying language is pretty straightforward on this one. The most obvious clue is the word boldface in boldface font, though these won’t all use that. The other clue is “play which of the following roles” – a question that asks about the role some information is playing is an Analyze the Structure question. What kind of information is found in Analyze the Structure questions and what are we supposed to do with that information? “Analyze” questions ask us to determine what kind of role some certain piece of info (or two pieces of info) is playing in the argument. As with most arguments, this one will contain a conclusion, some supporting information, and potentially some contrasting or contradictory information (information that goes against the conclusion). These arguments may also contain some background information that neither supports nor goes against the conclusion. One of the most annoying things about this question type is that the arguments tend to be long. The only redeeming quality: we don’t need to understand completely every last thing in the argument. Our first goal is to find the conclusion. Then, we need to decide how each boldface statement relates to the conclusion – that’s it. We don’t care much about the rest of the information – we only need to understand enough to be able to accomplish our above goals. In this argument, the first sentence tells us a fact: we know a certain comet broke into fragments, but we don’t know how big those fragments were. So (sentence 2), astronomers studied… something… in order to try to find something out about the size. (Make this abstract – it’s not the conclusion and it’s not boldface, so don’t try to understand “spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere.”) The scientists found sulfur. Boldface: the fragments themselves probably didn’t contain sulfur. That’s interesting. Scientists think Jupiter (the clouds) contained sulfur. If fragments penetrated the clouds, then some sulfur would show up, therefore, the author concludes with the second boldface statement: it’s probably the case that some fragments were large enough to get all the way through to the cloud layer before being burned up. Your notes might look something like this (though there are lots of ways to write notes!): Comet frags, how big? S. from where? Not frags From J’s clouds → therefore, some frags prob big enough to get that far Do you know what the conclusion is? Label it. How does each boldface relate to that conclusion? We’re going to use one of three designations: (C) It is the author’s conclusion. (Note that there could be a counter-conclusion made by someone else in the argument; we’re concerned with the author’s conclusion. In this case, the author is the “astronomer” mentioned at the very beginning.) (S) It supports the conclusion. The author provides the information as part of an attempt to support the author’s conclusion. (Neg or Neut) It’s neither the conclusion nor support for the conclusion. The two big possibilities here are that it actively goes against the conclusion – which we’ll call a neg (for negative) – or it doesn’t affect the conclusion either way – which we’ll call a neut (for neutral). Note that we’re grouping these two together; that’s because neither is actually part of the argument the author is trying to build. Answering the QuestionThe conclusion is the last part of the last sentence; that is, the conclusion is the second boldface. So label your 2nd boldface C (or whatever you’d like to use to indicate the conclusion). The first boldface, then, is not the conclusion. Does the author include the information in order to help support his conclusion? Or does the first boldface either go against the conclusion or do nothing to it? While the first boldface all by itself doesn’t directly make the conclusion any stronger, it is part of the sequence of information that the author uses to support the conclusion: fragments didn’t have sulfur, but Jupiter’s clouds did, so the observed sulfur probably come from the clouds, so… and then the author draws the conclusion. We’ll label the first boldface an S. This should be on your scrap paper: 1st: S, 2nd: C (again, using whatever labels you’ve decided to use). Now, go through the answers and eliminate any that you think are definitely wrong. For any that might be right, don’t eliminate yet; save them for a later comparison. Answer A says that the author offers an explanation for the information found in the first boldface. Is that an appropriate kind of thing for something labeled an S? Yes, possibly, so let’s leave it in. The answer also says that the second boldface “is that explanation” – could that be describing a conclusion? Possibly, so leave it in. Answer B says that the first boldface “weighs against the conclusion.” That’s not consistent with something labeled S. Eliminate. Answer C says the same thing: the first boldface “weighs against the conclusion.” That’s not consistent with something labeled an S. Eliminate. Answer D says that the first boldface supports the conclusion. That’s definitely what an S statement would do. Oh – but this answer also says that the second boldface weighs against the conclusion. That’s not consistent with something labeled C. Eliminate. Answer E says that the first boldface supports the conclusion; that’s consistent with an S. The answer also says that the second boldface is the conclusion; that’s consistent with a C. Answer E looks like a pretty good match, but we still have answer A in the mix as well, so let’s go take another look. Hmm. Answer E calls the first boldface a “judgment.” Is that accurate? And answer A calls the first boldface a “circumstance” and says the author explains that circumstance. Is that accurate? Here’s the statement again: “The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur”
Is that a fact? If so, we shouldn’t call it a “judgment.” Oh, wait – it says they “almost certainly” contained no sulfur. So we don’t actually know that for sure – it’s not a fact. We can call that a judgment, then. Does the author “offer an explanation” for that information? That would mean offering an explanation for why the fragments “almost certainly contained no sulfur” or how we know that this is true of the fragments. Does the author offer that information? No. The author never explains anything about why that statement is true or how we know. The author simply asserts the information. Further, the second boldface does not contain that explanation; the second boldface is the conclusion. Eliminate A. The correct answer is E. Key Takeaways for Solving Boldface CR Problems:(1) Know how to recognize this type. This is typically straightforward, as most of the arguments will actually contain boldface font. One variation is to show communication between two people (“Joe says… Mary responds”) and to ask what role Mary’s response to Joe plays or something similar. (2) Know what to do with Analyze the Argument questions. Find the conclusion and label each boldface relative to the conclusion: a C for Conclusion, an S for Support (the conclusion), a Neg for something that goes against the conclusion and a Neut for something that doesn’t affect the conclusion either way. (Again, you can use any symbols you want, as long as you’re consistent.)
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-9-16 21:55:20
