暂时停止更新~suri的gmat之旅，加油加油~~~~

babybearmm

说下我的思路吧，欢迎讨论。这题我的逻辑简图：

premise 1: Action: deny coll course
Premise 2: crime:  coll-course taker < non coll-course taker            CORRELATION!!!
               possible assumption: coll-course -----> reduced crime
Conclusion: Action counter goal (to reduce crime)

首先，premise 2是个correlation，我用<表示这是个data。遇到correlation推导出causal relation的，都要高度重视。correlation vs. causal relationship这种很典型，反驳的3个思路：just a coincidence? exist a 3rd factor that simultaneously leads to the two? simply reversed?
但作者推出的conclusion明显基于premise 1+premise 2. 他把premise 2理解成了causal relationship，所以暗含的assumption就是: correlation=causal relation
Assumption, strengthen, weaken这类题，正确答案往往都是针对核心的assumption，因此从这个角度去prephrase.
那么选项C，恰恰指出了这一点，说的是从correlation推出causal relation这一步的时候，causal relation不能reverse.

A选项，我paraphrase一下：
No other way (apart from coll course) can inhibit crime
这话显然不能作为assumption

如果A原话你觉得绕，就抽象成逻辑模型，本来assumption的因果关系是 X---->Y
X=take col course
Y=deter crime
A说的是：  No X ----> No Y
那么A显然错误。根据充分必要条件的知识，"X--->Y" 和 "No X ---> No Y" 显然不等价（一个命题和他的否命题不等价）。一个命题和他的逆否命题才是等价的，也就是说：
"X---->Y"     ~（等价于）    "No Y---->No X"
我看到A选项就是这么建模的，看出这是否命题，所以很快排除。

GWD3-Q32:
Newspaper editorial:
In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher.  art of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.  However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A.    Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B.    Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C.    The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D.    Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E.    The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

这道题我选的是A，答案是C，但又在beatgmat给的答案是A还有，现在c我好像能有点明白了，但是A还是不是很明白

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/7 22:26:43)

babybearmm

我觉得这个解释不好啊....
感觉翻译成中文曲解了原意，也没有暴露问题的逻辑本质
Anyway，个人意见

具体说，C的本质就是REVERSED causal relationship 不成立
本来作者的causal relationship:
take col course ------> inhibit crime

那是否可以reverse呢？就说罪犯本来就不想犯罪了，于是才上课(chosen to take)：
(already) inhibit crime -------> take col course
C选项说，这是不成立的。所以说C就是assumption，帮助由correlation建立causal relation

至于这里解释说什么deter啊，什么“中断课程”啊，真的是瞎扯...
deter=inhibit=prevent from acting
或者当作个逻辑问题，就是一把叉，可以在草稿纸上写个crime画把叉，that's it!

1、原文的Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.



2、原文的since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates



3、A选项的unlikely to deter anyone from a crime。。。



4、C选项的The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to。。。




分析A为什么不对：A的假设重点在deter这个词上，实际上原文反对意见根本不关心念书是否deter犯罪上，而是关心念书是否能让人出狱后减少犯罪上。并且真正deter犯罪的，是getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher，侧重点不在是否让罪犯念书上。A选项的anyone，也有错误选项的特征。



C选项为什么对：原文反对意见的since从句部分，表明了反对意见的言下之意是说governor的措施会使inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates不可能实现，也就是说，反对者认为deny罪犯读书，会影响减少犯罪的正面效果，这就是题干所说的假设。再看这个假设为什么对应到C选项：原文的Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses清楚表明罪犯原来是可以念书的，或者说罪犯已经念过一段时间的书了，deny翻译成“中断”可能更准确。千万不要忽视C选项的already，它实际上和原文的formerly had 相对应，结合原文，C选项可以翻译为：可以念书的罪犯，(在deny或中断念书之前)还没有达到能够出狱后比其它罪犯少犯罪(的程度)。也就是说，如果现在deny这些罪犯念书，他们不会比其它罪犯出狱后少犯罪，就不能达到governor减少犯罪的目的，这正是原文反对者所持观点。



用Not Weaken验证C选项：如果罪犯在被终止念书前(念的书)已经可以达到出狱后比其它罪犯少犯罪(的程度)，也就是说，如果deny罪犯读书，不影响罪犯(已经)读过的书的正面效果，则反对者Since从句部分内容就不能成立，其结论也就不成立。也就是说，这种情况下，是否deny罪犯读书，已经无关罪犯被deny前所读书的正面效果了，不影响措施的有效性了。


看到有效的解释了，好题目哇~~

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/7 22:30:56)

babybearmm

这题类似，我的简图
Premise 1. (data) Dep: Sm>non-Sm                Corrilation!!
Premise 2. (chem explan causal)    "perhaps"
Conclusion: Sm -----> Dep                            Causal

这题还是很典型的由corrilation推出causal的题目，只是把causal直接写成了结论，而非像上题的causal是作为推出结论的前提(assumption). premise 2是给出了一种possible explanation，知道是解释causal的就行了，不用管它，然后注意it is not so strong，因为有个"perhaps"
所以还是联想先前我说的从corrilation到causal的三项，如此prephrase

看到A，这简直就是反驳reversed causal relation！就它了，别的我不看了。

prep08 里面找到一道类似的题目，题目类型是支持，不过也用到了取非削弱
A study followed a group of teenagers who had never smoked and tracked whether they took up smoking and how their mental health changed.  After one year, the incidence of depression among those who had taken up smoking was four times as high as it was among those who had not.  Since nicotine in cigarettes changes brain chemistry, perhaps thereby affecting mood, it is likely that smoking contributes to depression in teenagers.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Participants who were depressed at the start of the study were no more likely to be smokers after one year than those who were not depressed.
B. The study did not distinguish between participants who smoked only occasionally and those who were heavy smokers.
C. Few, if any, of the participants in the study were friends or relatives of other participants.
D. Some participants entered and emerged from a period of depression within the year of the study.
E. The researchers did not track use of alcohol by the teenagers.


A．在这项研究一开始就抑郁的参与者和这项研究开始没有抑郁的参与者一样不可能成为吸烟者
一年后
排除了是depression导致smoking的可能性，加强了原文结论即是吸烟导致抑郁
If you negate Option A, it becomes
Participants who were depressed at the start of the study were more likely to be smokers after one year than those who were not depressed
The sentence above weakens the argument by providing an alternate cause - "Depression causes Smoking".
Option A strengthens the argument by closing the weakness "Depression does not cause Smoking" and is the correct answer.
题目的结论是smoking导致depression,而题干中的信息只是给你depression和smoking的动态上的关联，但没有说哪个是因，哪个是结果，即没有给你casual关系。所以，那4倍高的关系，即有可能是因为先depression了而导致开始抽烟，也可能是由于先开始抽烟而出现了depression。 文中的表达，尤其是incidence这个词给我们错觉：depression是smoking造成的，但是实际上原文叙述部分没这个意思。

而选项A,把depression导致抽烟这个可能给排除了。那么就只剩抽烟是因，depression是果这个可能。所以是加强原文结论/



B．无关
C．无关
D．削弱  
E．无关

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/7 22:51:51)

Suri在奋斗

这题类似，我的简图
Premise 1. (data) Dep: Sm>non-Sm                Corrilation!!
Premise 2. (chem explan causal)    "perhaps"
Conclusion: Sm -----> Dep                            Causal

这题还是很典型的由corrilation推出causal的题目，只是把causal直接写成了结论，而非像上题的causal是作为推出结论的前提(assumption). premise 2是给出了一种possible explanation，知道是解释causal的就行了，不用管它，然后注意it is not so strong，因为有个"perhaps"
所以还是联想先前我说的从corrilation到causal的三项，如此prephrase

看到A，这简直就是反驳reversed causal relation！就它了，别的我不看了。

prep08 里面找到一道类似的题目，题目类型是支持，不过也用到了取非削弱
A study followed a group of teenagers who had never smoked and tracked whether they took up smoking and how their mental health changed.  After one year, the incidence of depression among those who had taken up smoking was four times as high as it was among those who had not.  Since nicotine in cigarettes changes brain chemistry, perhaps thereby affecting mood, it is likely that smoking contributes to depression in teenagers.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Participants who were depressed at the start of the study were no more likely to be smokers after one year than those who were not depressed.
B. The study did not distinguish between participants who smoked only occasionally and those who were heavy smokers.
C. Few, if any, of the participants in the study were friends or relatives of other participants.
D. Some participants entered and emerged from a period of depression within the year of the study.
E. The researchers did not track use of alcohol by the teenagers.


A．在这项研究一开始就抑郁的参与者和这项研究开始没有抑郁的参与者一样不可能成为吸烟者
一年后
排除了是depression导致smoking的可能性，加强了原文结论即是吸烟导致抑郁
If you negate Option A, it becomes
Participants who were depressed at the start of the study were more likely to be smokers after one year than those who were not depressed
The sentence above weakens the argument by providing an alternate cause - "Depression causes Smoking".
Option A strengthens the argument by closing the weakness "Depression does not cause Smoking" and is the correct answer.
题目的结论是smoking导致depression,而题干中的信息只是给你depression和smoking的动态上的关联，但没有说哪个是因，哪个是结果，即没有给你casual关系。所以，那4倍高的关系，即有可能是因为先depression了而导致开始抽烟，也可能是由于先开始抽烟而出现了depression。 文中的表达，尤其是incidence这个词给我们错觉：depression是smoking造成的，但是实际上原文叙述部分没这个意思。

而选项A,把depression导致抽烟这个可能给排除了。那么就只剩抽烟是因，depression是果这个可能。所以是加强原文结论/



B．无关
C．无关
D．削弱  
E．无关

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/7 22:51:51)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/8 4:56:32)

恩恩，是的，是因果倒置~！！！
看懂了O(∩_∩)O哈哈~

Suri在奋斗

yiayia的比喻真是精妙啊~~~

小狗狗，给个建议你试试看，强烈推荐Master GMAT上面的interactive course阅读部分(http://mastergmat.com/)
start instant free trial
登陆后在你的页面里右上角那个"Start a Session"（很醒目的绿色的键），选verbal, 一定要勾"let me choose lessons myself"
然后就专选RC吧，好像叫learn a new topic on RC
我看论坛上对他家的online course评价相当高，尤其推荐CR & RC，所以我昨天就在学这个课程，目前只剩下最后一课了，时间不长，我估计两三小时绝对搞定了，不过收获很大啊...给你贴一节的summary:
Reading Comprehension: One Paragraph Reading Passages                                      The Initial Reading of one-paragraph reading passages is different from the standard Initial Reading and is conducted as follows:
1. Readthe first sentences of the passage until you understand the main idea (up to 2-3 sentences). Stop when you start reading specific information.
2. Scan the rest of the passage for structural words/phrases. Sentences beginning with such a word/phrase mark the beginning of a new subsection and explain its function.
整个是那种交互式的，出题考你、如果做错会给提示让你重新再选、等你做对就开始讲要点，每个要点都如此，最后summary，easy to follow. 练习题有个很赞的功能，就是你做对一道题之后，系统会询问你“你认为你做这道题花费了多长时间？” 你需要估测，然后和系统计时比较，就帮你建立time sense. （我发现我刚开始的预计严重偏离实际，结果慢慢练习，到昨天最后一次我预测40s，居然就是40s，时间观念进步很多啊）

打个比喻写一篇文章像作一副画，看框架是勾画一个个线条，内容则是对画的上色，就如作者首先明白要写什么，然后制订写作框架，最后把语句填充进去；但我们做阅读的不一样，我们是被要求在短时间复制这幅画的学生，需要边画线条，边对重要的部分上色。最后形成的复制画八九不离十就完成任务了。

这个比喻很贴切，通常一篇文章，真的需要你带着题目反复去看了，心中才大致有框架
对于框架明显的才好，不明显的，在考场下千万需要静下心来
suri是很担心，等真正去考试了，肯定比现在还紧张，那时候如果紧张了，特别是阅读，真的害怕完全读不进去了

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/7 22:01:06)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/8 3:50:18)

是在线练咯？？O(∩_∩)O哈哈~太好啦，我现在就愁不能在线练，每次重新做一遍gwd的rc部分的时候，我就重新用做过的模拟软件，结果每次就要不断重复点前面的题，麻烦死了
O(∩_∩)O谢谢 baby姐姐哇~！！！

Suri在奋斗

对了，我昨天也看了小狗狗的Manhattan笔记，狂赞啊~~于是我决定买那本RC guide了，顺便获得6套CAT

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/8 3:52:19)

那我重新再看看，现在到后期，重点绝对是cr和rc了，一下6套cat，真好
早知道我应该早点模拟，早点适应阅读这块的，O(∩_∩)O哈哈~

Suri在奋斗

A选项，我paraphrase一下：
No other way (apart from coll course) can inhibit crime
这话显然不能作为assumption

如果A原话你觉得绕，就抽象成逻辑模型，本来assumption的因果关系是 X---->Y
X=take col course
Y=deter crime
A说的是：  No X ----> No Y
那么A显然错误。根据充分必要条件的知识，"X--->Y" 和 "No X ---> No Y" 显然不等价（一个命题和他的否命题不等价）。一个命题和他的逆否命题才是等价的，也就是说：
"X---->Y"     ~（等价于）    "No Y---->No X"


我是一开始看到A，几个否定词后我也不知道怎么取非了，就觉得是很绕的那种，baby姐姐的这个分析看着清楚多了，比我刚才贴的那个帖子的话讲的更精确，assumption题目我看了看自己分类的，基本都是要取非削弱了，打算接下来的日子每天看一定的错题来巩固

Suri在奋斗

早晨起迟啦
睡到9点多了，上午计划就是看baby姐姐的回复帖子
然后结束语法笔记
原定上午的移到下午
下午模考，作文，数学jj

joelee1991

suri你报名了吗~~~~

该忙的终于忙完了。。。我也可以加入你们啦~~

Suri在奋斗

suri你报名了吗~~~~

该忙的终于忙完了。。。我也可以加入你们啦~~

-- by 会员 joelee1991 (2012/3/8 11:19:47)

还没报上，在等着位子，welcome~~!!
过几天再看看，我也想早点报上好哇