[求助]一道把我绕死的PREP逻辑

iamjasmineshi

InfiniteAlex 发表于 2014-9-11 21:21
其实应该先看findings of a survey of advertisers in Systems magazine，然后再看findings of a survey of ...

这个解释好

雪奈Yukina

gracezz 发表于 2010-4-25 16:16
这题太绕了：我觉得crack point在这：Finding of a survey of Systems magazine subscribers-关于S杂志读者 ...

感謝！

雪奈Yukina

from ron:
this problem features QUANTITATIVE DATA. that may make you grimace, depending on your mindset about quantitative data, but it shouldn't: all you need to do is look for the discrepancy in the numbers, and then find an answer choice that accounts for the discrepancy. unlike problems that are all words, these problems feature discrepancies that will essentially jump out at you if you examine the numbers.

when you examine the numbers, you must also pay close attention to DIFFERENCES, especially SLIGHT categorical differences, between categories that are being compared. in this problem, the most important difference is between subscribers who order and people who order. (there's also the distinction between random orders and orders in response to ads, but that distinction isn't tested, because both surveys are on the same side of it.)

in this problem:
of the orders placed by subscribers in response to ads, only 30% were from the under-35 crowd.
of the orders placed by anyone in response to ads, over 50% were from the under-35 crowd.
there's the discrepancy.

therefore, you need an answer choice that explains where all the extra orders in the 'anyone' category came from. this means in the 'anyone' category and not in the 'subscribers' category; no more, no less. that's exactly what is described in choice e.

scomel

这样的解释会不会好理解点？
在订阅报纸的人里面有30%的人是在登广告者那里买东西的，且年龄小于35岁。那么不出意外，更广告者那里的数据应该也应该是30%的人35岁以下，但实质上有over 50%的人是35岁以下，那么为什么？所以就是多出的那些35岁以下的人不是报纸订阅的人。

iiiii

这道题过了这么久还是能把人绕晕
真的很难想到不看杂志的人也会去订广告

红烧栗子

看了ron的解释，想这个题想了40分钟，妈蛋，太绕了。ron解释得很清晰，也就像他说的这道题并不是考数字，主要是识别数据的差别，嗯他说是靠直觉，根本就不用画表啊搞这么复杂。
in this problem:
of the orders placed by subscribers in response to ads, only 30% were from the under-35 crowd.
of the orders placed by anyone in response to ads, over 50% were from the under-35 crowd.

然后其实就可以得出了有许多anyone并不是subscribers。即使就算anyone里面全部都是subscribers，那也只占到了30%，有许多就不是subscribers。更何况不是这样的情况。

另外ron举了个类比的例子：
let's just use an analogy instead.
* Only 30% of the women in this room are wearing glasses.
but...
* More than half of all the people in this room are wearing glasses.

桃子下雪

我在曼哈顿论坛上看到一段讲解，说的是用数据的方式理解的。我觉得这个讲解不错，搬来给大家用用。

“this problem features QUANTITATIVE DATA. that may make you grimace, depending on your mindset about quantitative data, but it shouldn't: all you need to do is look for the discrepancy in the numbers, and then find an answer choice that accounts for the discrepancy. unlike problems that are all words, these problems feature discrepancies that will essentially jump out at you if you examine the numbers.

when you examine the numbers, you must also pay close attention to DIFFERENCES, especially SLIGHT categorical differences, between categories that are being compared. in this problem, the most important difference is between subscribers who order and people who order. (there's also the distinction between random orders and orders in response to ads, but that distinction isn't tested, because both surveys are on the same side of it.)

in this problem:
of the orders placed by subscribers in response to ads, only 30% were from the under-35 crowd.
of the orders placed by anyone in response to ads, over 50% were from the under-35 crowd.
there's the discrepancy.

therefore, you need an answer choice that explains where all the extra orders in the 'anyone' category came from. this means in the 'anyone' category and not in the 'subscribers' category; no more, no less. that's exactly what is described in choice e.

bam!”