上午复习逻辑，找到两个例子，JerryGuan来看

dreadpower

上午复习逻辑，找到两个关于assumption的例子，因为思路比较清晰，便于掌握这个原则，很是欣慰。。。

The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes. As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use.

Which of the following is an additional premise required by the argument above?

(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.

(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.

(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.

(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use

(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.

题目说：政府要禁止烟草公司用扣除广告费用后的所得来算所需支付的税收，这样烟草公司就会提高成本，并因此提高价格。所以许多人会不抽烟

选项A：感觉对，先放一边

选项B：原文没说烟草公司不做广告，也许它还是做广告。非作者意图

选项C：谁告诉我们人们因为广告公司不做广告就不再买烟草（白痴思维，别想太多，只因为没有内容告诉我们这个事实）非作者意图

选项D：离谱，根本就是和原文不沾边，要take it for granted

选项E：哪个告诉你的？？没有，非作者意图

回过来看A，就是能从原文推出来的

这是个大概思路，熟练掌握后排除选项很快，能解决90%的题目，还有些题目要取非

再来一道：

Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs. For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the argument above?

(A) Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents.

(B) Airline companies themselves should be the agents who investigate airline accidents.

(C) Stricter government regulation of airline companies will make air travel significantly safer.

(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents

(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained.

这个题目对于作者意图把握要求高，把握上稍有不对就会错。可以试着用这个方法来看。。。仔细体会A(not a factor)，B(离谱)，C (government regulation)，E（retrain）都不是作者想表达的意思

weiyu

谢谢dreadpower的分享．

第2题好像挺明显的．没有调查人员的分析，将来的事故不能被避免．D好像很直接，不知意下如何？？

dreadpower

    恩，weiyu兄说的有道理，我思路其实也不清晰，呵呵

dreadpower

以下是引用pumpkin在2004-4-12 23:56:00的发言：
用

再问dreadpower, 你说的意图是不是就是安哥哥在阅读里面提出的5个问题之首: why does the author write the para? 如果作者在写东东的时候有个目的, 那么他往往就是把这个目的当成是默认的, 所有就会不明确的写出来, 所有问题就让偶们把这个目的找出来, 补出这个默认的东东??----而且这个关键信息必须是全文的统筹理解

请指点......每次作个link的问题就是有点迷糊. 一旦题目长了, 直接找起来就会犯错.

对，就是这个意思

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-4-13 10:17:19编辑过]

delldell

诸位, 看一看原来句的逻辑主语, 好象一直都是investigators啊, instead of blaming... 的逻辑主语也是investigators. 我这就看不出来要有什么隐含的意思表达, 更看不出需要什么联系"二者"的东东了, 倒是如A能变成Pilot error is not a DIRECT / MAJOR contributing factor in most airline accidents.就正确了

delldell

怎么没人回啊

dreadpower

   抱歉，不是很明白你的意思。。。逻辑主语在CR里似乎不怎么说的，我是说体会整段的目的和意图

freedownload

我也有delldell的那种感觉，一看A，就象排除他因的假设，能否给我说说A为什么不对，因为如果是pilot的原因，你在那里investigate这个那个有什么用？

另外，delldell兄，我的那个PP题已经把题目重新敲了一遍，帮看看呀，谢谢！

delldell

老爸: 不要再责备儿子弄坏了家里的电视机, 还是想办法买一个质量好的电视机而且抽空好好教会儿子怎么用吧, 只有这样, 电视机才不会3个月就坏了.

这个的PRESUPPOSITION 是什么?? 是老爸should contribute to the prevention of future accidents? 这种假设强调了什么呢?

我来举个例子:  对于产品质量问题, 厂长与其责备工人不如调查生产流程的漏洞, 管理的疏忽.....

假设是什么? 是厂长应该解决问题? 这有什么必要不必要的?

JerryGuan

抱歉，偶看到这贴子，已经是你贴出来的5天以后了。考前的几天，乱七八糟，不知怎么过来的。

我现在怎么也看不下去英语了，看到GMAT的字样就觉得烦。

这两个题，我先收藏起来，过几天心情好点儿再回来好好看看。

先谢过dreadpower~~~