暂时停止更新~suri的gmat之旅，加油加油~~~~

ainiAnnie

恩，亲~你给我的回帖看到啊~~~好详细的说~~~
最后几天加油啦~~
心态也很重要~~
你行的你一定行~~
霸气一点~~~
（说老娘很霸气有木有。。。我偶尔会这样给自己打气。。。）

babybearmm

I disagree with your reasoning regarding B.  erhaps it's just your typo.....

B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year

If the answer is "yes", that means the unusual situation applies to both types of cotton (i.e. with or without insecticide does NOT matter), then that means the reason is NOT related to development of resistance, and thus this supports the author's conclusion that it's just simply because there are more worms.

If the answer is "no", that means the unusual situation applies only to genetically engineered cotton (i.e. the one with insecticide), then the reason is likely to be the development of resistance, and thus this weakens the author's conclusion (by supporting an alternative cause).

To summarize,
The answer to B is YES  ---> strengthen
The answer to B is NO  ---> weaken
(This is opposite to your reasoning.....)

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year.This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms （Background）

Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. (Premise)
Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. (Conclusion)

In fact, the nature of this reasoning is a cause and effect reasoning. A(Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions.)and B（sustained little bollworm damage until this year）just happen together.



Then think about how to weaken and strengthen the cause and effect reasoning. Let's think why B is correct. First, suppose "plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are not suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year ". It proves the conclusion directly. It seems that bollworms are really not developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Second, plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year. It just says that bollworms have the resistance. In addition, here is one additional assumption: farmers will provide insecticide to the planting of cotton that can not produce it itself and it does not matter what kind of insecticide is.

-- by 会员 yiayia (2012/3/15 10:18:47)

yiayia

I disagree with your reasoning regarding B.  erhaps it's just your typo.....

B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year

If the answer is "yes", that means the unusual situation applies to both types of cotton (i.e. with or without insecticide does NOT matter), then that means the reason is NOT related to development of resistance, and thus this supports the author's conclusion that it's just simply because there are more worms.

If the answer is "no", that means the unusual situation applies only to genetically engineered cotton (i.e. the one with insecticide), then the reason is likely to be the development of resistance, and thus this weakens the author's conclusion (by supporting an alternative cause).

To summarize,
The answer to B is YES  ---> strengthen
The answer to B is NO  ---> weaken
(This is opposite to your reasoning.....)

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year.This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms （Background）

Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. (Premise)
Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. (Conclusion)

In fact, the nature of this reasoning is a cause and effect reasoning. A(Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions.)and B（sustained little bollworm damage until this year）just happen together.



Then think about how to weaken and strengthen the cause and effect reasoning. Let's think why B is correct. First, suppose "plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are not suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year ". It proves the conclusion directly. It seems that bollworms are really not developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Second, plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year. It just says that bollworms have the resistance. In addition, here is one additional assumption: farmers will provide insecticide to the planting of cotton that can not produce it itself and it does not matter what kind of insecticide is.

-- by 会员 yiayia (2012/3/15 10:18:47)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/15 10:59:28)

En...There is the difference between us because I add an unclear assumption:farmers will provide insecticide to the planting of cotton that can not produce it itself. Hope to open discuss.

Suri在奋斗

I disagree with your reasoning regarding B.  erhaps it's just your typo.....

B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year

If the answer is "yes", that means the unusual situation applies to both types of cotton (i.e. with or without insecticide does NOT matter), then that means the reason is NOT related to development of resistance, and thus this supports the author's conclusion that it's just simply because there are more worms.

If the answer is "no", that means the unusual situation applies only to genetically engineered cotton (i.e. the one with insecticide), then the reason is likely to be the development of resistance, and thus this weakens the author's conclusion (by supporting an alternative cause).

To summarize,
The answer to B is YES  ---> strengthen
The answer to B is NO  ---> weaken
(This is opposite to your reasoning.....)

baby姐姐的这段分析的是很赞
把cotton分为两类   with or without insecticide
题干说过  Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide
B虫并没有对棉花杀虫剂产生抗性
所以，排除了少量抗性强的B能够杀死大片的棉花
就好比，要打退敌人，军队有超强的武器，所以一支规模小装备强的军队就能够对付有大量杀虫剂的棉花大军
可是今年的棉花大军损失严重，而B军队没有高科技装备的武器
只能说是B军队作战人数急剧上升，以数量的优势比如100000对100取得了绝对性的胜利，尽管棉花大军有杀虫剂这种武器
要说这个结论对不对
就得问那些  没有杀虫剂武器的棉花大军今年是不是和这个B军队战斗的时候损失惨重（就因为B军靠数量优势）
因为因为军粮corn供给增加多了。哈哈，参军的B士兵也多了

Suri在奋斗

恩，亲~你给我的回帖看到啊~~~好详细的说~~~
最后几天加油啦~~
心态也很重要~~
你行的你一定行~~
霸气一点~~~
（说老娘很霸气有木有。。。我偶尔会这样给自己打气。。。）

-- by 会员 ainiAnnie (2012/3/15 10:56:00)

果然是queen B 啊，O(∩_∩)O哈哈~

yiayia

I think the biggest difference is that the way we regard the role of " Bollworms, however,are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's  insecticede. "

My point is that the argument is proceed by refuting one possible reason most obvious above and then stating another reason which seems most possible, not just saying that cotton's damage is caused by the increasing number of insects. So I weaken the argument by point out that the first point is right.

So if it is a boldface problem, what's the role of "Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide." and "So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms."?

Suri在奋斗

哇，明白了！我选的C算不上逻辑错误，作者这里的逻辑没问题。
感觉这题有点像咱昨天有争议的那道题(snow geese, restriction...)，当时你们说选B，我说B的过去的fact不代表将来的potential。
这题出得挺好的啊，典型的错误。
谢谢小狗狗分享~

第三题，真的觉得和现在练的作文的感觉好像啊，答案是A，开始的时候看A都不知道在说啥

GWD25-Q3.
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat:  No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.
Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A.    attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B.    mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C.    attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D.    simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E．assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group
M: J的工资低,所以吸引不到最好的人才, raise也不能改变这种情况, 因为coupled 一个ban
P: raise确实改变了这种情况, 因为很少有J去teach or give lecture, 所以ban几乎没有负面影响.
选项A是说, 试图以对现在成员的影响作为证据, 去证明其对潜在成员的影响
P说的话的意思其实就是, 因为现在的J很少去teach or give lecture, 所以那些潜在可以成为J的优秀人才也都不会去teach or give lecture, 所以ban几乎没有负面影响, 所以raise就改变了这种情况
很显然,就是A所描述的那种错误..所以答案为A

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/15 7:12:01)

-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/15 9:15:09)

就是作文argument里面常常将的一个攻击的点，gmat真是考逻辑，从语法到作文，时时刻刻穿插着，以下是笔记，O(∩_∩)O哈哈~

All things are equal(简单相同)

范式：A有属性C,因此无论A如何变化，A都有属性C(假设为时间和空间没有变化)

标志：时间状语、时态变化

举反例思路：直接否定

Suri在奋斗

I think the biggest difference is that the way we regard the role of " Bollworms, however,are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's  insecticede. "

My point is that the argument is proceed by refuting this point above and then stating another reason which seems most possible, not just saying that cotton's damage is caused by the increasing number of insects. So I weaken the argument by point out that the first point is right.

So if it is a boldface problem, what's the role of "Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide." and "So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms."?

-- by 会员 yiayia (2012/3/15 11:30:14)

yiayia全英文的逻辑分析真是让suri自愧不如
B···are···就感觉好像是结论建立的一个前提或者是假设
It is likely···是结论···
这是suri想的，不知道是这样的么

yiayia

I think the biggest difference is that the way we regard the role of " Bollworms, however,are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's  insecticede. "

My point is that the argument is proceed by refuting this point above and then stating another reason which seems most possible, not just saying that cotton's damage is caused by the increasing number of insects. So I weaken the argument by point out that the first point is right.

So if it is a boldface problem, what's the role of "Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide." and "So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms."?

-- by 会员 yiayia (2012/3/15 11:30:14)

yiayia全英文的逻辑分析真是让suri自愧不如
B···are···就感觉好像是结论建立的一个前提或者是假设
It is likely···是结论···
这是suri想的，不知道是这样的么

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/15 11:36:09)

Aha, English is  concise and precise. I find my great fault in doing the work is that I always try to translate English into Chinese. In fact, this action is a waste of time and sometimes will make me miss important message. So I decide to write and think in English. Hope to help~

babybearmm

Reasoning
Although plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce an insecticide to combat
bollworms were little damaged by the pests in previous years, they are being severely
damaged this year. Since the bollworms breed on corn, and there has been more corn
planted this year in cotton-growing areas, the cotton is probably being overwhelmed
by the corn-bred bollworms.
In evaluating the argument, which question would it be most useful to have answered?The
argument states that the bioengineered cotton crop failures this year (1) have likely been
due to the increased corn plantings and (2) not due to the pests having developed a
resistance to the insecticide . This also implies (3) that the failures are not due to some
third factor.

It would be useful to know how the bioengineered cotton is faring in comparison to the rest of this
year's cotton crop. If the bioengineered cotton is faring better against the boltworms, that fact would
support the argument because it would suggest that the insecticide is still combating bollworms. If, on
the other hand, the bioengineered cotton is being more severely ravaged by bollworms than is other
cotton, that suggests that there is some third cause that is primarily at fault .

-以上来自OG verbal 2nd p.222

我觉得关键是suri引用的那句话的"not necessarily"
Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide.

suri说：
"题干说过  Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide
B虫并没有对棉花杀虫剂产生抗性"

我认为suri这个翻译不对。

Here "not necessarily" means: maybe, or maybe not... we don't know
In other words, we do NOT know whether the worms are developing resistance. We do NOT know whether the resistance , an alternative cause, is the real cause here.  
In order to strengthen the argument, we need to rule out this alternative cause.
In order to weaken the argument, we may bring up this alternative cause.

I think the biggest difference is that the way we regard the role of " Bollworms, however,are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's  insecticede. "

My point is that the argument is proceed by refuting this point above and then stating another reason which seems most possible, not just saying that cotton's damage is caused by the increasing number of insects. So I weaken the argument by point out that the first point is right.

So if it is a boldface problem, what's the role of "Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide." and "So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms."?

-- by 会员 yiayia (2012/3/15 11:30:14)

yiayia全英文的逻辑分析真是让suri自愧不如
B···are···就感觉好像是结论建立的一个前提或者是假设
It is likely···是结论···
这是suri想的，不知道是这样的么

-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/3/15 11:36:09)