准备二战G 6.4 杭州 是为记

shua2015

五十层传奇 发表于 2015-4-28 15:18
我刷CR有时候也郁闷的不得了，不过神奇的是，有时候想不明白的逻辑链睡一觉起来重新看就觉得恍然大悟的。 ...

嗯嗯。你的潜意识已经帮你理顺了，羡慕。
希望下回醒来也能和你一样顿悟。一起加油~

shua2015

其实每天效率最高的时候就是总结前的几个小时，这拖延是有多严重

重看了Manhattan RC 前三章, 对比书里建议的 map 的方法和 ron 建议的方法。
可能因为ron有 big-picture 的思维习惯，猜是因为他的 working memory 很棒，所以cotent 都是直接跳的，
而书里的方法会相对注重 content 一些，体现在会标注content的位置。
因人而异选择适合自己的，关键练习时方法要 consistent，不然就是自作孽了。
当然目标是一致的，每段有 main idea, 文章有 main idea, 弄清 structure, 能直接答main idea的题目，并随时定位就好。
发现阅读小分队如果用ron的方法，速度会提高许多。 不过就是存粹泛读了。
总结：
文章有大势, resolution,answer,old new,idea reason
论证有框架，
map跟着框架走。

fov单词20页
阅读小分队

酩茗

shua2015 发表于 2015-4-29 00:22
加油好运，我也是一个礼拜前开始每天刷考位刷出来的。毕竟接近考试了有的朋友会选择临时改期什么的。 ...

..确实有了，纠结抱这个还是六月初。。。

shua2015

酩茗 发表于 2015-4-29 21:24
..确实有了，纠结抱这个还是六月初。。。

看 复习进度 和 申请计划，个人觉得六月 比较靠前 的日子也安全。

shua2015

看了两集ron的视频，讲blanks in the prompt的题型。做法分 weaken 或 explain the discrepancy 两类。
weaken下思路：y到x也成立，或有共同因素z.
explain 的时候还是需要 common sense 能把 out of scope 的正确项联系起来。

Manhattan rc 继续两章。回顾了ron map的方法，
1.了结main idea，structure题.
2.结束detaild的作用题，detail扫过不看。
检验了og rc前12篇，只 map 和 general questions.

总结：重视对方法的掌握是好的，可是要好好熟悉啊。。。

fov sc看了两章。
居然没有单词，居然没有阅读小分队。what am i doing today?

shua2015

现在才完整地看完BAT前辈的帖子，惭愧。感受：
1.贪多嚼不烂。
2.当你想解决一个大难题的时候，不要用另外一个大难题去代替，而是把大难题分成一个个小的难题。好像是ron说的。
3.自己摸索领悟永远是站在前辈的基础上的。尽职调查。
4.学会调整心态。stacey推荐用冥想。

Manhattan CR 3章。
og rc 12篇。只做了specific questions.
fov 单词6页

shua2015

连看stacey,BAT,laywer, 居然忽然领悟了CR的玄机。
子曰：吾道一以贯之。而郁闷的感觉就是我的错误一以贯之。

stacey believe:
the GMAT uses only a few basic argument patterns, with similar assumptions and a limited number of ways to strengthen or weaken those assumptions.
Similar conclusions have similar assumptions. And similar assumptions have similar ways to strengthen, weaken, and evaluate.
起初我以为理解argument的situation(场景)应该从flaw pattern出发，发现容易弄混，stacey提供了更棒的分类方法从 conclusion 出发。
GMAT only writes 4 types of conclusions: predictions, opinions, solutions, and explanations。 "pose"
Predictions，Solutions，
Explanations: WHY something happened, or the cause of some phenomenon.
Opinions: Interpretations of facts or data–often value judgments (good/bad/true false).
不过stacey其实是把前三类不能规定都划入opinion。 我在尝试该分类的时候发现的困难在于无法区分 explanation 和 opinion.

luckily,看到了BAT大神的帖子，看到他解释“因果型结论”和“非因果型结论”，看到他给的“非因果型结论”的例子：
A drug that is highly effective in treating many types of infection can, at present, be obtained only from the bark of the ibora, a tree that is quite rare in the wild. It takes the bark of 5,000 trees to make one kilogram of the drug. It follows, therefore, that continued production of the drug must inevitably lead to the ibora’s extinction.
这个结论 “continued production of the drug must inevitably lead to the ibora’s extinction.”
我怎么看都觉得是“因果型结论”， "lead...to"。然后开始爬楼梯，终于找到有人（zhangyn916） 跟我有一样的困惑。然后是BAT的解释
“你要带着前提来看这个结论。因果型结论，它往往是，【一个现象（或者说一个实验等等），然后一个因果型结论】。然后这个结论，一定是用来解释这个现象或实验的。有一个这个感觉。”
“但是，一般的逻辑题，【一个premise（可能也会是现象或者实验、发现什么的），然后一个结论】。但是这个结论，是通过这个现象推得的，但并不是说用来解释那个premise（那个现象的）。”
然后回看本题：前面balabala在说一个事，制某药需要耗费很多树，最后通过这个premise推出一个结论：the ibora’s extinction，因此不是因果型。

顿时明白 explanation 和 opinion 的区别就在: explanation 里的 conclusion 是解释前面premise的。
然后开excel重做分类，接着按照stacey的思路画图。
然后又瞄到了laywer大神的 CR破题大法。明白了“事实推理型”的由来
A事实B推理， A推理B事实，其实说的就是 premise 和 conclusion 的样式和关系。
A事实B推理 A->B 其实就是 explanation. 而 prediction 和 opinion 都符合后者。措施目的型完全一致。

laywer大神惜字如金，方法相对抽象，之前怎么也看不懂，现在终也能略窥一二了。
不过我基础太浅，还是喜欢采用stacey的分类，也因为stacey的分类更符合我对 场景 的理解。
结合 laywer大神 破题大法的图，重画。代入检验 weaken 和 strengthen 的题目，终于有了“事后诸葛”的感觉。
希望不是 seletcive bias.


单词11页
阅读小分队

shua2015

ron sc 讲座2节
做gmat club V 模考，被完虐，反省。。。

阅读小分队

shua2015

做了一份Manhattan CAT， 发现这段没啥进步。
Manhattan推荐的对测试的分析方法确实很科学。
只有暴力上了。计划两天结束CR。然后突击RC，今天光整理小安的帖子就已经内心澎湃了。

长难句 15
单词 100

shua2015

看一个前辈的日记贴

说到stacey，今天看到她的一个帖子，分享下：

I should point out that, when I say those ofus who score 780+ don't need to do all that much, it's not because we have amagical, innate ability to figure anything out in 60 seconds. (I also want topoint out that we are talking 780+, not "merely" 99th percentile.There is a difference. Even me with my 780 - I'm not sure that I'll ever scorean 800 on the real thing!)
When I see a new problem, 99% of the time, I canmake a connection with another problem I've done before. I'm almost neverreally doing a "new" problem at this point (and this was true when Itook the GMAT for the first time, too). Most of the time, it's "right,this is like these twoother problems I've seen in the past and I can use this part of the firstsolution method for this and that part of the second solution method for that,and I'm confident it works (because I've used it before) and I also know thefastest way to do it and now I'm done."

How does this happen? We're fascinated bystandardized tests. We don't just do problems. We analyze them to death, well beyond what anyonewould do who doesn't work in the industry. We figure out how they're written and why they're writtenthe way they are. And we're doing this long before someone ever pays usto do this because we'rejust fascinated by this stuff. That's why, the first time I took thetest, I didn't have to do much - I'd been analyzing these kinds of things fromthe time I first started taking standardized tests and I already had a largebase of knowledge off of which to work.

That absolutely does not mean that someone whodoesn't have the above characteristics cannot score 780+. Not only is itpossible, I'm sure it has happened. I've had students score as high as 770. If you don't already have the above characteristics, though, the whole fascination with these tests and a willingness to analyze them to death, then I'd argue that you're going to have to develop these things in order to have a good shot at that kind of score.



这两点很震撼：
1.  If you don't already have the above characteristics, though, the whole fascination with these tests and a willingness to analyze them to death, then I'd argue that you're going to have to develop these things in order to have a good shot at that kind of score.
2. I'm almost never really doing a "new" problem at this point (and this was true when I took the GMAT for the first time, too). Most of the time, it's "right, this is like these two other problems I've seen in the past and I can use this part of the first solution method for this and that part of the second solution method for that, and I'm confident it works (because I've used it before) and I also know the fastest way to do it and now I'm done."

我的感想：其实像自己习惯不好的话，时间多也只是浪费。 不过是在不断地重复低效地做不同的事。