暂时停止更新~suri的gmat之旅，加油加油~~~~

Suri在奋斗

suri这个分享太给力了哇~~！！

-- by 会员 泾渭不凡 (2012/2/19 9:04:11)

今天才看到哇，有六节课，每节课是70分钟多，我听了个头，从argument讲起，有时间想来慢慢听~~~
饭饭，新的一天来啦，继续跑~\(≧▽≦)/~啦啦啦

livia2012

分享太给力了~又学到了，manhattan真是要强烈推荐的书啊

Suri在奋斗

分享太给力了~又学到了，manhattan真是要强烈推荐的书啊

-- by 会员 livia2012 (2012/2/19 10:05:20)

是哇，觉得越读收获越大~~~

yiayia

http://open.sina.com.cn/CriticalReasoningforBeginners.html
新浪公开课，牛津大学crictical reasoning推理入门，有时间可以看看，很不错

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/2/19 8:59:32)

发现没来suri的帖子报道过，自打耳光三百下

视频早就下载了，一直没看，抽空看完。

Suri在奋斗

og104的一道weaken题目
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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

做的时候题目的大意我还是不清楚
就略略抓了个结构
BC: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
premise: In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store
sub-conclusion（premise）: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
conclusion：those locations will not stay vacant for long
要削弱结论的话就要找 这些地点会stay vacant
然后注意到premise中的Colson是一个nondiscount department store，所以从这个削弱入手，看其他的都觉得无关

最终
忐忑加不确定选B，选对了，我第一遍做这个题目是2月份初，把答案空着了
然后在manhattan中找到解释
the key to the argument is the assumption that the previous trend will continue -- that is, that new stores will continue to replace the old ones, just as they did before.
specifically, when the previous store closures occurred, new stores took their place. the argument assumes that, should these new stores close within 5 years, still more new stores will take their place.

anything that casts doubt on this assumption - i.e., that makes it LESS likely that even more new stores will spring up to take the place of the old ones - will weaken the argument.

this is what (b) does.
if the new stores were discount stores, that's why they were able to compete with colson's. however, since spendless is a big discount store, even these discount stores won't be able to compete with it.

Ron解释的很好


这个类型的weaken题目还是第一次看到

应该就是lawyer大神总结的削弱类的一种特殊题型即：
原文是类比：WEAKEN方式为两者本质不同或直接weaken结论

到现在思路就清晰多了
原文的假设建立在新开的S替代了以前G的中心stores
所以认为五年后新开的C也会替代旧的店
把这个类比了，所以要证明两者的本质不同，即S对于G中心商店有竞争力但C对于旧的店木有竞争力
即C不能替代旧的店，因为旧的店是折扣店，而C不是，C就木有竞争力

这样的题型第一次见到，真的很赞
还有逻辑和阅读一样，也要抓关键词
比如percentage，就要想到百分比的变话不一定能代表绝对数的变化
注意细微处的区别，经常说的shell game就会在结论和前提间偷换概念

Suri在奋斗

http://open.sina.com.cn/CriticalReasoningforBeginners.html
新浪公开课，牛津大学crictical reasoning推理入门，有时间可以看看，很不错

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/2/19 8:59:32)

发现没来suri的帖子报道过，自打耳光三百下

视频早就下载了，一直没看，抽空看完。

-- by 会员 yiayia (2012/2/19 10:38:43)

我也要抽空看完，嘿嘿~~~
说的suri不好意思哇，加油~\(≧▽≦)/~啦啦啦

yiayia

嘿嘿 suri童鞋翻译反了。这题之前我也纠结好久。

逻辑链是新开的S（打折店）替代了以前G的中心stores（也是打折店），但这些位置不会空置。理由是在C（非打折店）开的5年中，新店（没说是什么店，因此在这上面做文章）都取代了倒闭店的位置。
注意 a new storehas 是现在完成时。

隐含的假设是打折店比非打折店有竞争优势，这作为常识性假设。

Suri在奋斗

是呀，翻译反了啦，哈哈，谢谢！
这样就是啦，我再把我的理解重新编辑下，不过这个题目我觉得还是一种类比把，从以前的推倒现在

yiayia

嗯，比较对象本质不同。

Suri在奋斗

og104的一道weaken题目
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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

做的时候题目的大意我还是不清楚
就略略抓了个结构
BC: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
premise: In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store
sub-conclusion（premise）: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
conclusion：those locations will not stay vacant for long
要削弱结论的话就要找 这些地点会stay vacant
然后注意到premise中的Colson是一个nondiscount department store，所以从这个削弱入手，看其他的都觉得无关

最终
忐忑加不确定选B，选对了，我第一遍做这个题目是2月份初，把答案空着了
然后在manhattan中找到解释
the key to the argument is the assumption that the previous trend will continue -- that is, that new stores will continue to replace the old ones, just as they did before.
specifically, when the previous store closures occurred, new stores took their place. the argument assumes that, should these new stores close within 5 years, still more new stores will take their place.

anything that casts doubt on this assumption - i.e., that makes it LESS likely that even more new stores will spring up to take the place of the old ones - will weaken the argument.

this is what (b) does.
if the new stores were discount stores, that's why they were able to compete with colson's. however, since spendless is a big discount store, even these discount stores won't be able to compete with it.

Ron解释的很好


这个类型的weaken题目还是第一次看到

应该就是lawyer大神总结的削弱类的一种特殊题型即：
原文是类比：WEAKEN方式为两者本质不同或直接weaken结论

到现在思路就清晰多了
这样的题型第一次见到，真的很赞
还有逻辑和阅读一样，也要抓关键词
比如percentage，就要想到百分比的变话不一定能代表绝对数的变化
注意细微处的区别，经常说的shell game就会在结论和前提间偷换概念

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/2/19 10:42:48)

最后一部分我的翻译搞错啦，谢谢yiayia指出

我就直接把我在manhattan搜到的再贴出来，我现在明白这个意思啦，但是呢，自己没那个能力去表达出来，O(∩_∩)O~
5 yrs back a non-discount store opened which led to several stores shutting down (must be selling similar products as the argument says they couldn't compete with Colson). But a new store opened everytime an existing store shut down.

Based on this evidence the author concludes that the same trend will continue now, when Spendless has opened.

But option B gives you a reason why the new stores that opened 5 yrs back managed to survive (because they were discount stores as compared to Colsons which was a non-discount store); it's obvious the same reason will not apply in the current case since Spendless is itself a discount store so why will more new discount stores open if the existing ones are unable to compete with Spendless.