[求助]OG看了3遍，题目无形中都背下来了，怎么办？

gavin1911

既然这样就做GWD啦....边做边套用OG的总结

Whitney

I am not NN, but my CR improved a lot recently.  Here is my suggestion:

1) CR is Critical Reasoning. It
    tests the logical relationship, NOT the detail of topics in the argument. -- So the first thing is to find out the logical structure of argument.  How this argument is constructed?
2) To find out logical structure, you have  to recoganize the premise (Evidence) and conclusion within the argument.  Just keep in mind that Premise + Assumption => Conclusion.  You can see how important the assumption is because you must assume that Premise and Conclusion are facts, so it is likely that only assumption can be changed.  You can strengthen/weaken the argument by targeting assumption.
3) Then you can construct the logical structure or map of argument, which usually very simple.
For example,
Premise: A (which can a word, a phase, a sentence, or a pragraphy.)
Premise: B leads to C (Sometime, several conclusions C+D+E..);
Conclusion: A leads to C;
Assumption? A=B or A belongs to B or A's situation = B's situation
4) Since the logical map is relatively simple, the actual questions have a lot of nasty things to prevent us to recognize premises, conclusions, and assumptions.
 
Here is my suggestion to you.
Read only argument and question stem. Don't read the answers.
Write down the logical map; i.e. Premise, Conclusion; assumption.
Write down how the argument is constructed.  For example, Conclusion, then explain it by cite an example. 
Try to simplify the argument by throw out junks/Traps so you will know what is trap looks like.
Ask yourself what assumption/condition is required to strenghten or weaken the argument. Is there any other assumption? Write them down.  Keep in your mind the following: What/ Who (Same scope?) When (All conditions are identical bewteen two time points?) Where (Same location?) How (Same methods?) Part or All?

You will see when you stripe the question to its barebone, it usually takes less than 20 s to get the right answer.
Practice both difficult and simple questions.  Save 5~10 sec on every easy question may be easier than solve a really tough one. Time = Higher Score.
Practice and practice. (You can do it whenever you have time, just keep a folder to collect all you notes.)
After several days, you will see the results.

sesame

写得非常好!!请教whitney辨别premise,conclusion,assumption的方法?

Whitney

Sesame,
Read the argument carefully! Keep an eye on words indicating cause-and-effects such as, therefore, because, (in order) to, etc, and keep an eye on verb tenese indicating past (fact), preenst (fact), and future (maybe or maybe not).   You have to find them by logical relationship.  Premise (evidence or statement) is a fact, which is a description of a condition, a situation, or a fact.  It can a word, a phrase, a sentence, or even a paragraph.  Conclusion is also a statement.  Sometimes, since premise + Assumption => conclusion, there can a  sequential order between premise and conclusion.  That is the events described in premise come first, that events in conclusion come later. Once again, the key is logical relationship.

For example,
GWD4
Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long.  In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s.
Q: Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

From the first sentence, we know that things occurred in following order:
Competition of SpendLess to discount stores=>the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years=>those locations will not stay vacant for long.  Therefore, "Competition of SpendLess to discount stores" is premise, and "the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years + those locations will not stay vacant for long" are conclusion.
Second sentence was evidence because it talked somethings already have happened.

Logical structure:
A will lead to B and C because D, which is similar to A, has led to B' and C' [I used B' and C' because there is scope change. discount store (white horse) versus store (horse)].  You see, you can describe the argument is a short sentence.

Premise 1: A (Competition of SpendLess to discount stores)
Premise 2: D (Competition of Colson’s) => B (closing of nearby stores) + C (a new discount store has opened at the location of every store..that closed);
Conclusion: A =>B (Nearby stores will be closed) + C (those locations will not stay vacant for long);
The assumption is: A's situation is identical to D's situation. (A=D)
To weaken the argument, attack the assumption.