GWD-1-15

伯爵奶茶

建议大家看看32楼的发言，说的真好。

对于这种为达到某种目的而提出方法建议类的推理题，其实有两种类型：

１、为达到一个目的而提出某一方法；这里暗含的逻辑为这个方法是目前条件下唯一可以使用的方法，或者是最好的方法；强调唯一性时，最好的削弱办法就是他因，或者说最好的加强办法就是没有他因（类似于那种由responsible, due to, attribute to 等引导的原因解释现象的“因果结构”推理类型）

２、由某一方法试图达到某一目的；这里暗含的逻辑是这种方法可以达到目的，强调方法可行，并不强调这是唯一、最好的方法。（通常由by 来引导方法，是常规的“前提结论”推理类型）

所以在第一种情况是由  目的→方法   第二种情况  就是本题  是由   方法→目的

第一种的hidden premise 是  这个方法或建议是唯一或者最具关键性的能够实现目的的方法或建议

第二种的hidden premise 是  该方法能实现此目的   并不强调这是唯一、最好的方法。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-1 14:50:05编辑过]

zhengjingzhe

up

judyenglish

以下是引用baohua8142在2008-6-15 16:03:00的发言：

我认为C重复了原文的说法the varieties currently grown contain little beta-carotene，重复不算加强！

我觉得这个解释很好。

c只是重复了原文中的一个事实，并没有加强。


强烈同意！GWD有好几题都是这样排除的=》优点：快速，精准

honeydd

建议大家看看32楼的发言，说的真好。
对于这种为达到某种目的而提出方法建议类的推理题，其实有两种类型：








１、为达到一个目的而提出某一方法；这里暗含的逻辑为这个方法是目前条件下唯一可以使用的方法，或者是最好的方法；强调唯一性时，最好的削弱办法就是他因，或者说最好的加强办法就是没有他因（类似于那种由responsible, due to, attribute to 等引导的原因解释现象的“因果结构”推理类型）








２、由某一方法试图达到某一目的；这里暗含的逻辑是这种方法可以达到目的，强调方法可行，并不强调这是唯一、最好的方法。（通常由by 来引导方法，是常规的“前提结论”推理类型）

所以在第一种情况是由  目的→方法   第二种情况  就是本题  是由   方法→目的
第一种的hidden premise 是  这个方法或建议是唯一或者最具关键性的能够实现目的的方法或建议
第二种的hidden premise 是  该方法能实现此目的   并不强调这是唯一、最好的方法。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-1 14:50:05编辑过]

-- by 会员 伯爵奶茶 (2009/4/1 11:13:00)

比较赞同这个！

JasonRO

OG其实解释的很好：C.It is SPK004's beta-carotene content relative to the beta-carotene content of the sweet potatoes
currently grown in the region that is relevant here, so it doe s not matter if there are other varieties
of sweet potato that are richer in beta- carotene than SPK004 is.

说SPK的成功只和本地种植的其他sweet potato含的beta-carotene content相关，而其他不是currently grown in the region ，即使你richer in beta- carotene than SPK004 ，也无法对SPK在这个地区的成功造成影响。

lsshi8947

个人思路，本题是典型的手段目的题。目的：improve nutrition，手段：encouraging farmers to plant SPK004。看A，如果SPK004 lack important nutrients，那么种植它可能会导致其他营养元素的缺乏，从而达不到improve nutrition的目的，所以是加强（取非后削弱是加强）；看c，如果SPK004不是含beta-carotene最高的，不一定就达不到improve nutrition的目的，因为文中已经说is rich in betacarotene。只要improve就行，不一定要improve most。 综上，选a

InfiniteAlex

C是无关选项

Hendy

结论 ：
the ultimate conclusion of this argument is simply that the plan will increase overall nutrition. the increase in vitamin A is the vehicle of the particular nutritional improvement in question, but that's a premise, not the conclusion. the conclusion of the argument is simply "nutrition will be improved".

(C), on the other hand, is irrelevant. the argument is concerned only with showing that the plan will succeed, NOT with showing that the plan is optimal or better than other plans.

this is extremely important. make sure you realize this: unless an argument specifically compares a course of action to other courses of action, and/or states that a course of action is best/worst/optimal/etc., then other courses of action are irrelevant.

nalogy:

let's say my argument's conclusion is "diet X will help you lose weight."
if i have an answer choice that says that diet Y will help you lose weight faster than will diet X, that's totally irrelevant. it does not weaken the claim that diet X will help you lose weight.

on the other hand, if my argument's conculsion is "diet X is the best diet for weight loss", then, all of a sudden, any such claim about diet Y will indeed weaken the argument.

Hendy

2008年以前的帖子都是精华。

问啊问啊

看 RON 大神的解答

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/in-parts-of-south-america-t5816.html

Re: In parts of South America

Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:51 am

sdgirl wrote:In parts of South America, vitamin-A deficiency is a serious health problem, especially among children. In one region, agriculturists hope to improve nutrition by encouraging farmers to plant a new variety of sweet potato called SPK004 that is rich in betacarotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. The plan has good chances of success, since sweet potato is a staple of the region's diet and agriculture, and the varieties currently grown contain little beta-carotene.

which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the plan will succeed?

a. There are other vegetables currently grown in the region that contain more beta-carotene than the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato do.
b. The flesh of SPK004 differs from that of the currently cultivated sweet potatoes in colors and textures, so traditional foods would look somewhat different when prepared from SPK004.
c. For successful cultivation of SPK004, a soil significantly richer in nitrogen is needed than is needed for the varieties of sweet potato currently cultivated in the region.
d. There are no other varieties of sweet potato that are significantly richer in beta-carotene than SPK004 is.
e. the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato contain no important nutrients that SPK004 lacks.

OA: E

i was debating between D and E, and ultimately chose D. I think they both equally support the prediction that the plan will succeed. so why is that E is better?


ok, first of all, make sure that you understand why (e) does strengthen the argument.

remember that one extremely common way to strengthen arguments is to undermine possible objections to those arguments. in this case, especially given the extant differences between the potatoes (one contains b-carotene and the other doesn't), it's quite reasonable to raise the following objection: "but what about other nutrients? if spk004 has b-carotene but other potatoes don't, then might other potatoes have some other nutrient that's lacking in spk004?"
legitimate objection.
(e) dispenses with this objection, so it strengthens the argument.

--

(d), on the other hand, is irrelevant. the argument is concerned only with showing that the plan will succeed, NOT with showing that the plan is optimal or better than other plans.

this is extremely important. make sure you realize this: unless an argument specifically compares a course of action to other courses of action, and/or states that a course of action is best/worst/optimal/etc., then other courses of action are irrelevant.

--

analogy:

let's say my argument's conclusion is "diet X will help you lose weight."
if i have an answer choice that says that diet Y will help you lose weight faster than will diet X, that's totally irrelevant. it does not weaken the claim that diet X will help you lose weight.

on the other hand, if my argument's conculsion is "diet X is the best diet for weight loss", then, all of a sudden, any such claim about diet Y will indeed weaken the argument.

see the difference?