搜索问答

话题

一般讨论 具体问题

27-50页打卡笔记

今天的课程内容主要以熟悉和练习题目为主,虽然处于备考后期,但做题目并不是不会出错,其中 出错了的题目我会认为更多的是对选项句子理解上的偏差。这种偏差会导致我没有办法彻底读清楚选项的真正含义,从而会在一定程度上会影响构建联系。不知道老师是否有针对这方面的一些建议或者技巧帮助在考场上

习题 (阅读至P61)

In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated with money, such

as "salary, whereas another group was shown neutral words. Afterward, individuals in both

groups solved puzzles unrelated to money. Those who had been shown words associated

with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles. The researchers

concluded from this evidence that preoccupation with money makes people less

cooperative.


Which of the following is an assumption the researchers' reasoning requires?

A. At least some of the volunteers were preoccupied with money before being shown

the words.

B.Being shown the neutral words did not cause the volunteers to become preoccupied

with subjects other than money.

C. Most of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with

the puzzles.

D. Most of the volunteers in both groups succeeded in solving the puzzles, either with

or without help.

E. The volunteers who were shown neutral words were, on average, less preoccupied

with money while solving the puzzles than the other volunteers were.

Day3:一个很好的关于蕴含的例子

P40


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


前提:抽烟的青少年患抑郁的概率是不抽烟的四倍

结论:抽烟导致抑郁


思考方向:

结论蕴含前提,加强有两个方向:

1、存在结论蕴含的其他事件

2、不存在其他事件(非结论)也能蕴含前提事件的情况


A选项指出了一个“能蕴含前提事件的情况”不存在,即不是“抑郁导致抽烟”。正确。

解题步骤

我用这个例题来尝试具体一下解题步骤:

To improve the long-term savings rate of the citizens of Levaska, the country's legislature

decided to implement a plan that allows investors to save up to $1,000 per year in special

accounts without paying taxes on the interest earned unless withdrawals are made before

the investor reaches age sixty-five. Withdrawals from these accounts prior to age sixtyfive

would result in the investor's having to pay taxes on all the accumulated interest at the

time of withdrawal.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the legislature's

plan will have its intended effect?

(A) The money saved in the tax-free savings accounts will be deposited primarily in those

banks and financial institutions that supported the legislation instituting the plan.

(B) The majority of people choosing to take advantage of the tax-free savings accounts

will withdraw their money prior to age sixty-five.

(C) A significant number of the citizens of Levaska will invest in the tax-free savings

accounts well before they reach the age of sixty-five.

(D) During the ten years prior to implementation of the plan, Levaskans deposited an

increasingly smaller percentage of their annual income in long-term savings

accounts.

(E) People who are not citizens of Levaska are not eligible to invest in the tax-free

savings accounts, even if their income is taxable in Levaska.


目标:To improve the long-term savings rate of the citizens of Levaska

方案:no taxes needs to be paid on the interest earned when investors save up to $1000 per year until the age of 65.

提问:强化


A,说的是银行和立法机关,无关

B,论述和示例无关

C,是方案的结果,也强化了目标,保留

D,执行这个计划前10年,Levaska的人在长期存款上有少许增长。无关

E,削弱


我的答案是C,现在我看答案去。

逆用蕴含关系(补)

事件型与方案型考题的解题步骤(削弱)做一整理:

1.检查结论事件(方案事件)是否蕴含前提事件(目标事件)。如果不蕴含,则 logical gap即为答案。

2.如果结论事件蕴含前提事件,则答案选项有两种可能,它们没有力度强弱的分别。

(1)指出结论(方案)蕴含的其它事件没有出现(不可接受);

(2)指出前提(目标)也能同时被和结论无关的另一个事件(方案)蕴含。


找结论

1结论信号词

2被支持的句子



总结如下:

削弱:A/B/C

加强:notA/ notB/ not C

假设:notA/ notB/ not C(重要的加强)

评估:A 和 not A / B 和 not B /C 和 not C



黑脸题解题步骤:

1.通读整个文段,判断文段的主结论;确定主结论后,判断两黑体部分和主结论的关系

2.看选项时,不要过分关注那些抽象名词的意思,要把关注点放在这些抽象名词身后的定语从句上。

解题步骤
2个回答

分类:

首先检查结论事件是否蕴含前提事件(前提是否为结论的必要条件),如不蕴含,则Logical gap即为答案。

如果蕴含,则答案选项有两种可能:

1、指出结论蕴含的其他事件没有出现:

例子:

前提事件:There are several winemakers producing wine to which no sulfites are added

结论事件:Those who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink these wines

without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites

提问Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion above?

(A) Sulfites occur naturally in most wine.

(B) The sulfites that can produce an allergic reaction are also commonly found in beverages other

than wine.

(C) Wines without added sulfites tend to be at least moderately expensive.

(D) Apart from sulfites, there are other substances commonly present in wine that can trigger

allergic reactions.

(E) Wine without added sulfites sometimes becomes undrinkable even before the wine is sold to

consumers.

疑问:对于A的解释,书中“本选项指出了另一个结论蕴含的事件不存在,保留”

其实没有完全明白“另一个结论蕴含的事件”指的是什么?如果是“亚硝酸盐在大部分酒中是存在的这个”,这个为什么就成了结论蕴含的事件不存在?还请老师解答。

这题我自己做也做对了,但是我的理由是:亚硝酸盐既然在大部分酒中是存在的,即使喝没有单独添加亚硝酸盐的酒,依然会过敏。


2、指出前提前提也能被和结论无关的另一个事件蕴含。

前提事件:Last year, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. At the beginning of

the half-hour slot a substantial portion of the viewing public had tuned in to that station.

结论事件Clearly, then, many more people are interested in lengthy televised political messages

than was previously thought.

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


(A) The candidate who produced the half-hour-long advertisement did not win elec-tion at the polls.

(B) The half-hour-long advertisement was watched by other candidates before it was broadcast.

(C) The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during a time slot normally taken by one of the

most popular prime-time shows.

(D) Most short political advertisements are aired during a wide range of programs in order to reach

a broad spectrum of viewers.

(E) In general a regular-length television program that features debate about cur-rent political

issues depends for its appeal on the personal qualities of the pro-gram’s moderator.


本例子的疑问:

C并不是能够蕴含前提事件的一个结论,而是同前提并列的一个前提。我选C的原因是,C其实造成了人们以为长广告会有好的收视率的一个错觉,所以削弱的前提事件。只是觉得例子和解题思路,我没有完全对上,还希望老师能够解答。

逆用蕴含关系

事件型考题 :把两个具有逆蕴含关系的事件放入文章中进行考查

结论蕴含前提,gap:指出前提事件与结论蕴含事件的差异

1.一个方法是指出结论蕴含的其它事件没有出现。

这道题有点绕,理解有点久,但懂了也不难

结论事件“喝酒的人不在冒硫化物过敏的风险来喝酒”蕴含前提“酒里不添加硫化物。

结论事件也同时蕴含:酒里本身没有硫化物

2.另一个方法是指出前提也能同时被和结论无关的另一个事件蕴含。

(剩下还没读完,今天一起补上)

逆用蕴含关系!

首先 通过读这一章 意识到了自己在第一章理解里面的错误。即 认为 A蕴含 B B就是A的假设前提.

因为 在蕴含关系的分辨是 涉及的是整个CR的范围 即第一性原理, B如果是A的前提假设 那么 也可以说B是A事件的加强, B使得A发生的概率变大了, 即 加强本来就蕴含有前提 区分太清反而影响 底层逻辑的寻找。


尤其在逆用蕴含关系中 前提和加强都是基于 逻辑上的蕴含关系别的 是否成立 (Logic Gap)上 进行考察的。


分为事件型 和 方案型

事件型 : 描述一个事件 给出另一个事件 考察两者的蕴含关系(其中包括因果关系)

比如 小明打翻了水壶 所以 小明会挨打。

两个事件 1. 小明打翻了无盖的水壶

2 水壶里的水洒了


那么 这里的蕴含关系应该是 水壶水洒了 蕴含 小明打翻无盖水壶。


现在如果说

1.小明拿起了无盖水壶

2水壶水洒了。

这时2并不蕴含1事件.

这时如果加强或者找假设

那么答案就应该落脚与 2事件对1事件的蕴含.即 使得这个蕴含关系成立

可以说: 小明只有拿起无盖的水壶 就会把水壶打翻

如果削弱或者找FLAW的话

同样作用与2-1的蕴含关系 目的是让两者蕴含关系更加不成立.

比如:

小明拿起水壶 不一定会打翻水壶

同时比较最早的蕴含关系 即 小明打翻了无盖的水壶。

后面这个就是基于上面的改写从小明打翻水壶 到 小明拿起水壶。

这两者 有很大的相似性 两者的差距就是 GAP

加强就是 减小两者差距

削弱就是 加大突出两者差距


综上是对 两者的蕴含关系不存在或者不成立考虑的

那么



注意 这个是在 蕴喊关系存在时



如果现在两者存在蕴含关系的时候怎么办

比如: 小明打翻了无盖的水壶

水壶的水洒了

水壶水洒蕴含 小明打翻无盖

如果 要削弱怎么班?

两种角度

1。 事件2 水洒 一定蕴含 超过一个事件(比如 水壶要有水 要被打翻 还要 无盖 等等 )

那么 只要 指出 2事件蕴含的其他事件 不存在 就可以 使得 2无法成立 使得 仅仅从1无法得出2事件成立。


2. 另一种是 指出事件一也同时被另一个 无关 无关 事件蕴含

比如现在说1. 水壶水洒了

2.小明打翻的

那么答案可以说 刚刚小黄 来把水壶打翻了。

那么水壶水洒 同时也包含小黄打翻水壶. .


day 2 p12~21

逆用蕴含关系

事件|方案

-事件类:

结论事件p———>前提事件q

+蕴含:logical gap即为答案

+不蕴含:

1 指出 同时可能被蕴含的 其他事件 没有出现

2 指出 另一个能蕴含该前提的 结论R


-方案类:

方案事件———>目标事件

+蕴含:logical gap即为答案

+不蕴含:

1 指出 同时可能被蕴含的 其他方案 不能被接受

2 指出 另一个更好的方案


*先找结论,找到后 问自己'凭什么',能回答的句子就是前提。


*前提是事实,结论是作者'猜的'。

常见题型的解题思路

考试中常见的考试题型有 加强,削弱,假设,评估以及黑脸题。 前四种基本题型的解题本质是削弱。

举一个以前看到过的例题:

马云的数学很差,他也不高。我也数学不好,也不高。 但是,马云可以成为一个成功的商人,也说明我也会成为一个成功的商人。

分析这个例题, 可以得出

前提:我跟马云有很多相似点

结论:我会跟马云一样。


这是一个典型的类比型题目。 根据问题的不同,我们可以设想一下可能会有的答案:

-加强: 张三跟马云一样矮也数学不好,或者张三数学不好而且还矮, 但是张三也跟马云一样成功。 ( 通过其他类似事件来证明这个我的逻辑是没错的)

-削弱:马云有一个好爸爸 ( 通过引出其他不同的事情来削弱我的逻辑)

-评论: 是否人又矮又不爱学数学的人都更容易成功 (通过回答是否来加强或者削弱)

-假设:马云没有一个好爸爸 (通过取掉一个外部因素来增强我的逻辑)


但是如果仔细研究一下上面的四个问法, 其实我们都可以看出这四个问题的本宗就是削弱。 我想这也是毕老师在讲反向蕴含想表达的。