OG13 81

fiona77777

which of the following most logically completes the argument?
The attribution of the choral work Lacrimae to the composer Pescard (1400 閳?1474) has been regarded as tentative, since it was based on a single treatise from the early 1500's that named Pescard as the composer. Recently, several musical treatises from the late 1500's have come to light, all of which name Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae. Unfortunately, these newly discovered treatises lend no support to the attribution of Lacrimae to Pescard, since _______.

• Athe treatise from the early 1500's misidentifies the composers of some of the musical works it considers
• Bthe author of the treatise from the early 1500's had no very strong evidence on which to base the identification of Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae
• Cthere are works that can conclusively be attributed to Pescard that are not even mentioned in the treatise from the early 1500's
• Dthe later treatises probably had no source for their attribution other than the earlier treatise
• Eno known treatises from the 1600's identify Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae
  

When i scanned the answers,i chose C firstly.While i read about the explanation,I knew a little about this quetion.
BUT,i don't understand the answers of this question exactly.
Are there any NN help me to solve this problem?
I also want to know how to find the KEY WORDS,for i found TREATISE in all five answers.I CANNOT PICK UP THE CORRECT ONE IN THE SHORTEST TIME.
Thanks.

soulwangh

1/
Analogy:
Premise:
person1 says " tomorrow it will rain"
Person2 says "tomorrow it will rain"
Person3 says" tomorrow it will rain"
Person4 says"" tomorrow it will rain"
Conclusion: Tomorrow it will rain.

FInd a choice Weaken this argument

Analogy for Answer C: Sometimes Person1 didn't say it would rain, and finally it rained.
Why this answer is wrong? In other words, why it cannot weaken the conclusion?
TOP PRINCIPLE for CR: Tie to the conclusion.
The conclusion is about whether tomorrow it will rain. The choice has nothing to do with the conclusion.
SECOND PRINCIPLE for CR: attack(weaken) or defend( strengthen ) THE LINE OF REASONING
The conclusion is based on Peer Reviews. The author cites other opinions to prove that Person1 is right. This choice has nothing to do with other people's opinions.

Analogy for the right Answer: Person2\3\4 depend their judgement on what Person 1 say.
It equals that Person 1 repeatedly forecast the rain 4 times. You cannot turn a lie into a truth by just repeating it. This choice indeed weaken the argument.

2\
Don't find the KEY WORDS unless you comprehend the whole stimulus.
In fact, there is no KEY WORDS for CR. If you want to find in the choices the identical words which reside in the stimulus to find the right answer, you make a big mistake. In RC, we can use this trick, because among hundreds of words finding identical words is not easy. But Gmac would not make the KEY WORDS as a clue in CR. It is too easy for us.

Indeed, Gmac alway use new concept and words in the correct choice.
If you feel Key words provide a short cut, they otherwise render a trap to distract you away.

3/
Read and comprehend. IT is the only way you can crack CR.
Pay attention on the LINE OF REASONING and CONCLUSION rather than KEY WORDS.
USE ANALOGY when you review the questions just as i do.

兰心寒

楼上好厉害啊

soulwangh

兰心寒 发表于 2013-12-10 18:01
楼上好厉害啊

Thanks!

I think this post is the best one of all my replies.

Sometimes, i will re-check my replies and never find any err in this one.

supermario5

我觉得最重要的确实如楼上说，要理解题干。题干问为什么新发现的treatises无法提供更多证明？注意题干要讨论的是新发现的treatises（late 1500s），如果楼主想找关键词，这就是关键词，因为它指明了讨论的中心。
回到选项：
ABC都在讲the treatise from the early 1500s怎么样，完全没有提到treatises from the late 1500s,很明显属于无关选项。
E讲treatises from 1600s怎么样，一样没有关注讨论的中心。
D讲到the later treatises（late 1500s）可能也是根据the early treatise(early 1500s)得出的结论，而没有别的引用依据，因此并没有增加新的支持，像楼上说的只是在重复以前（the early treatise）说过的话而已。