强烈推荐：关于BF （boldface）题目的解题思路和方法，来自beatthegmat

forevercoco

The Bold Face of GMAT



The fine folks at ETS ("Creating Access to Graduate Business Education") bring you the final frontier in verbal testing: the GMAT bold-faced critical reasoning question-the last hurdle between you and the 700+ score you so richly deserve. But these questions seem to cause a lot of anxiety among test-takers and test-takers-to-be. Why? I think that it is because these questions are strange and uncharted. Approaching the BF question is a bit like trying to read Dostoevsky, in Russian, while stumbling around in the dark, in a room full of holes. It's disorienting and confusing and generally unpleasant. There are no clear references and no decent guides. We fear the unknown. We try to avoid what we do not understand. But given our common goal, let's get to know the BF question. Let's come to understand it. If we know it and understand it, then we can kill it.



When you see one of these questions in your actual GMAT, the first thing you should do is congratulate yourself on having done well enough to have brought the BF challenge upon yourself in the first place. In the final analysis NOT getting a BF question or two during the exam is definitely WORSE than getting them. So, you're already doing something right. The key is to use what you know to split the answer choices. Here's my approach:



(1) Read the argument. Read it quickly, as you ask yourself, "What's the point here?"



(2) Identify the Main Conclusion. You've got to identify the main conclusion to proceed-the main conclusion is your "port of entry" into the BF question. So, find the main conclusion as quickly as possible and note whether it is one of the bolded phrases.



(3) Go directly to the answer choices. Do not, I repeat DO NOT, spend any time trying to figure out what roles the bolded phrases play within the argument without some idea of the terms that are being offered in the answer choices. It's a waste of precious time.



? IF the main conclusion IS one of the bolded phrases, then find the answer choices that offer that option for the respective bolded phrase (first or second). A significant number of BF questions can be answered correctly with this information ALONE. If there is only one choice that matches up with the bolded main conclusion then you're done. Mark it and move on. Otherwise?



? Have a quick look through the choices to discover the terms in play (see below).



(4) Return to the argument and determine the relationship between each bolded phrase and the argument's main conclusion. Does each basically agree with the conclusion of the argument? Does one but not the other? Neither? What other relationships occur to you?



(5) Return to the answer choices and use these relationships to discard at least two (and probably) three choices. Here is the short-list of likely terms:



? Main Conclusion-a summary of the argument's primary position;

? Intermediate Conclusion-a position utilized by the argument as a stepping stone in order to advance toward the main conclusion;

? Premise-a theory or proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn;

? Fact-information generally believed to be true OR known to be true-usually advanced as evidence to support a premise;

? Evidence-specific type of fact offered in support of a theory or premise;

? Context-a frame of reference of value in the interpretation of aspects of an argument or the argument's components;

? Consideration-a factor (fact) to be taken into account in forming a judgment or decision;

? Position-a point of view or attitude about an issue or question;

? Assumption-a position or belief that is taken to be true, without proof;

? Principle-a basic or essential truth (stronger and broader than a fact).

? Judgment-an opinion formed from a consideration of the facts.



(6) Now, take each of the remaining choices one by one, matching the similar part of each answer choice to its respective BF phrase, then discriminate between the dissimilar part of each answer choice and its respective BF phrase. That should take you the rest of the way home.



I just pulled Set 15 at random- Question 23 is "Wilgrinn Wilderness Area." Let's take it down:





Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it. That plan is ill-conceived: if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders. On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires. And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.



In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?



A. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.

B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.

C. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.

D. The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument; the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument's advocacy of a particular strategy.

E. The first presents a goal that the argument endorses; the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.





Main Conclusion: "A more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability." So, we didn't luck out and get the answer just by having identified the main conclusion. No problem.



Terms in play:



A. (1) A goal (that the argument rejects)

(2) Evidence (as grounds for the rejection)

B. (1) A goal (that the argument judges as unattainable)

(2) Reason or reasoning (support for that judgment)

C. (1) A goal (that the argument judges as attainable)

(2) A refutation (of that judgment)

D. (1) A goal (with the strategies for attainment in question in the argument)

(2) Reason or reasoning (support for ONE of the noted strategies)

E. (1) A goal (endorsed by the argument)

(2) A factor or fact (consideration effecting the timely attainment of that goal)



Back to the Bold-Faced phrases to determine their relationship to the main conclusion:



BF 1: Preservation of the Wilgrinn land (that's got to be the goal referred to by the answer choices). Reading on? => The plan is ill-conceived (not the goal, but the plan-argument does not argue against the goal, but does argue against the plan for achieving the goal) => So, the goal is preservation of the land (First BF) and that's also part of the main conclusion => First BF is a goal with which the argument basically agrees => A and B are gone.



BF 2: Doesn't really relate to the main conclusion, so?



Return to the answer choices and consider second BF description in remaining choices => C and D are still possibilities, but? => E implies that the argument suggests changing a situation in order to make attainment of the goal possible. But the argument suggests changing the entire strategy for attaining the goal, which is not the same thing, at all-so the second BF part of this choice doesn't fit. Also, the argument doesn't really endorse the goal so much as it endorses a particular strategy by which to attain the goal. So the first part of Choice E doesn't fit, either => E is gone, leaving us with C and D.



Read Choice C in its entirety:



(1) Says the first BF presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained. Not exactly-the argument actually concludes that a different strategy is needed to attain the goal, not simply that the goal is attainable (so this part of this choice doesn't match the argument).



(2) Says the second BF in the argument is a judgment disputing whether the goal can be attained. NO, definitely not-the second BF in the argument suggests a reason why one strategy won't succeed, but has nothing to do with whether the goal can be attained-the second part of this choice clearly doesn't match the argument, at all => C is gone.



Now look at the remaining choice, to make sure it fits:



(1) Goal, strategies for achieving under consideration-YES.



(2) An opinion or judgment that serves as the basis supporting an alternative to the earlier plan, but with the same ultimate goal-preservation of Wilgrinn land-YES.



Done. Mark it and move on.



Here's another:



Economist: Tropicorp, which constantly seeks profitable investment opportunities, has been buying and clearing sections of tropical forest for cattle ranching, although pastures newly created there become useless for grazing after just a few years. The company has not gone into rubber tapping, even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which leaves the forest intact. Thus, some environmentalists conclude that Tropicorp has not acted wholly out of economic self-interest. However, these environmentalists are probably wrong. The initial investment required for a successful rubber-tapping operation is larger than that needed for a cattle ranch. Furthermore, there is a shortage of workers employable in rubber-tapping operations, and finally, taxes are higher on profits from rubber tapping than on profits from cattle ranching.



In the economist's argument, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?



A. The first supports the conclusion of the economist's argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.

B. The first states the conclusion of the economist's argument; the second supports that conclusion.

C. The first supports the environmentalists' conclusion; the second states that conclusion.

D. The first states the environmentalists' conclusion; the second states the conclusion of the economist's argument.

E. Each supports the conclusion of the economist's argument.





Main Conclusion: "However, these environmentalists are probably wrong (about their assessment of Tropicorp's intent)." It's not one of the bolded phrases, so?



Terms in play:



A. (1) Evidence, fact, or consideration in support of the argument's (economist's) main conclusion

(2) Support for doubting that conclusion

B. (1) Argument's main conclusion

(2) Support for that conclusion

C. (1) Support for the conclusion that the argument opposes

(2) Conclusion which the argument opposes

D. (1) Conclusion which the argument opposes

(2) Main conclusion of the argument

E. (1) Support for the main conclusion of the argument

(2) Support for the main conclusion of the argument



Back to the Bold-Faced phrases to determine their relationship to the main conclusion:



BF 1: Main conclusion of the argument says, essentially, that the environmentalists are wrong in thinking that Tropicorp's decision not to pursue rubber tapping and, thereby, leave the forests intact INDICATES that Tropicorp is not entirely profit-motivated. => In other words, the main conclusion disagrees with the environmentalists' assessment of Tropicorp's motives. So, that means that the first BF is reasoning that supports the position that the argument opposes.



BF 2: The second BF is the environmentalists' conclusion, which means that it is the conclusion which the argument refutes. This is the easier of the two BF roles to work with first => C is the only choice that offers this option => C is the answer => Done but, for the sake of completeness, let's complete the process:



Return to the answer choices and consider the first BF description in remaining choices. => Once again, C is the only choice that offers the option for which we are searching => Further confirmation of C as the correct choice for this question.



Taking a final look:



(1) Support for the conclusion that the argument opposes-YES.



(2) Conclusion which the argument opposes-YES.



Definitely done. You know what to do?

childrenshiny

谢谢lz，先copy下来慢慢研究~~

liuxiao45

这个非常给力！

AlohaDJ

Thanks for sharing. Copy下来慢慢研究~~

shaoheng1120

many thx

shimisi69

谢谢LZ

yvonnexie125

Thanks for sharing. This analysis is significantly helpful !

茄子要加油

Mark一下！               

玉米山山人

赞

王百卉

感谢分享！