GMAT繁杂世界,关注一个就够了 导语“EVALUATION 题,也就是我们俗称的评价题,需要考生选出一个选项,对原文的结论进行评价或评估——也就是说,正确答案是决定文章结论能否成立的关键。评价题是一类比较特殊的题型,它的选项有别于其他类型的题目,选项一般是“疑问句或者特殊形式的陈述句”。 正式考试中,评价题的典型问法: Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the argument?The answer to which of the following questions would be most important in determining whether implementing the proposal would be likely to achieve the desired result? In assessing the plan’s chances of achieving its aim, it would be most useful to know which of the following? 英文标志词evaluate; appraisal 应对策略在【逻辑-削弱题篇】 里,我们谈到了一个推理过程中的“隐藏推理”,而在评价题中,对这类“隐藏推理”的挖掘则更加淋漓尽致。我们的目标,就是要寻找一个能对段落推理起到正反两方面作用的选项。 那么,具体情况下,我们对于每个选项又如何操作呢? 1、当选项为一般疑问句时 对这个问句有两方面的回答——yes 和no。若对这个问句回答yes,则对段落推理起到了支持作用;若对这个问句回答no,则对段落推理起到了驳斥作用;若对这个问句回答yes对段落推理起到了反对作用,那么对这个问句回答no,就对段落推理起到了支持作用。只有当存在这种“两面性”时,才能说明这个问题就对段落推理有评价作用。 (注意一定是对这个问句的yes与no的回答都起作用,如果仅仅对一方面回答起作用,则不是评价) 2、当选项为特殊疑问句或者陈述句时 道理还是一样的,首先我们要提炼这个选项给出的“精准信息”,然后我们可以对于这个“精准信息”进行否定(例如加上not),如果“精准信息”的正面和反面都能对原结论起到作用,而且是截然相反的作用,则说明这个选项是一个评价选项。 下面,我们将通过两个真题看看实际情况下评价题的操作。 学以致用1Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year. The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument? A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?1确定题型根据关键词evaluating the journalist’s argument快速确定本题为评价题。2梳理原文框架Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year. 首先,文章出现了转折,However转折之后是重点,也是journalist的观点所在。所以,在这之前的内容不用关注。 So表因果,前后因果关系就是本题的核心推理。 原因:Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission(Bergeron 向选举委员会提交了一个详尽的目前财产清单,满足了候选人财务披露的要求) 结果:it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year(Bergeron 有可能成为今年的州长候选人) 3形成逻辑链根据上面的归纳,我们的逻辑链为:Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy➡ Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year 这时,你就要根据逻辑链进行分析了:在这个逻辑链里,存在着一个怎样的隐藏逻辑呢? 文章逻辑认为:B这个人满足了一个requirement,所以他很可能成为一个candidate。 文章的暗藏逻辑则是:B一直没有满足requirement,但其实他是想成为candidate的,所以一旦满足了这个requirement,就说明他很可能成为candidate了。 通过这个暗藏逻辑,我们再来看每个选项。A选项AHas anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron? 其他人是否满足要求跟本题的推理过程没有任何关系,核心的推理过程关注的是Bergeron是否会成为候选人,别人是否满足条件对于他成为候选人的前提“满足财务披露要求”没有任何的影响。B选项BIs submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements? 这个选项探讨的是fufill requirement这个过程需要采取的手段,但其实文章的核心逻辑链并不是在这方面,文章只关心fufill requirement到be candidate之间的关系,并不关心通过什么方式fufill requirement。C选项CDid the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission? journalist的信息来源是什么也不是这里的关注点,这里关注点就在推理本身。信息是否从election commission来对于本文结论成立的前提并没有评价作用。 D选项DHave Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years? 财产是否增值和本题核心推理过程无关,错误。E选项EHad Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections? 这个选项正好符合了我们前文提到的“隐藏逻辑”。这里探讨了B这个人在之前有没有fufill requirement。如果回答是yes,说明了他fufill了也没有竞选,这一次自然也不确定,这严重削弱了文章的结论;如果回答是no,则说明他之前一直没有满足requirement,所以才没竞选,这一次满足了当然很有可能竞选,加强了原文结论。 学以致用2Community activist: If Morganville wants to keep its central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store on the outskirts of Morganville. Records from other small towns show that whenever SaveAll has opened a store outside the central shopping district of a small town, within five years the town has experienced the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores in the shopping district. The answer to which of the following would be most useful for evaluating the community activist’s reasoning? A. Have community activists in other towns successfully campaigned against the opening of a SaveAll store on the outskirts of their towns?B. Do a large percentage of the residents of Morganville currently do almost all of their shopping at stores in Morganville?C. In towns with healthy central shopping districts, what proportion of the stores in those districts suffers bankruptcy during a typical five-year period?D. What proportion of the employees at the SaveAll store on the outskirts of Morganville will be drawn from Morganville?E. Do newly opened SaveAll stores ever lose money during their first five years of operation?1确定题型根据关键词evaluating the community activist’s reasoning快速确定本题为评价题。2梳理原文框架Community activist: If Morganville wants to keep its central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store on the outskirts of Morganville. Records from other small towns show that whenever SaveAll has opened a store outside the central shopping district of a small town, within five years the town has experienced the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores in the shopping district. 首先,本段落前后没有转折词,表明前后逻辑方向一致。本题第一句表明观点,第二句Records from other small towns show that暗示使用证据对前面提出的核心观点进一步支持。 If 表条件,前后存在“前提”➡“结论”推理过程。Morganville wants to keep its central shopping district healthy(Morganville想要保证自己核心商业区的健康) ➡ it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store on the outskirts of Morganville(它必须阻止SaveAll的大型折扣店在其周边开业) 第二句是支持主题结论的证据。Whenever SaveAll has opened a store outside the central shopping district of a small town, within five years the town has experienced the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores in the shopping district.(无论何时,SaveAll在一个小镇的核心商业区域外开店,五年之内,这个镇商业区内会有1/4的店破产。) 3形成逻辑链整理和简化上述的内容,我们可以形成一个逻辑链: SaveAll opened ➡ the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores ➡ prevent the opening of SaveAll on the outskirts of Morganville 这里,我们又要分析这个逻辑链里的隐藏逻辑链了。这段话在讲述 SaveAll 的“威胁论”,最核心的论据就是它让四分之一的店倒闭了。这里的隐藏逻辑就是:本没有那么多店倒闭(倒闭率低于四分之一),SaveAll 让这个倒闭率提高了。A选项AHave community activists in other towns successfully campaigned against the opening of a SaveAll store on the outskirts of their towns? 是不是有积极分子的反对行为,对于核心推理过程来说属于无关内容。B选项BDo a large percentage of the residents of Morganville currently do almost all of their shopping at stores in Morganville? 人们现阶段是否完全在现有的店里购物,也是跟核心推理过程无关的内容。 C选项CIn towns with healthy central shopping districts, what proportion of the stores in those districts suffers bankruptcy during a typical five-year period? 正常情况下,这里商业区的店五年之内倒闭的比率是多少?如果搞清楚这个数字,我们就能够判断是否应该让 SaveAll 开店了,数据如果是大于1/4,则应该开店,如果低于1/4,则不应该开店,本选项完全可以评价原文推理过程。正确。D选项DWhat proportion of the employees at the SaveAll store on the outskirts of Morganville will be drawn from Morganville? 员工被吸引的比例跟本文核心推理过程无关。E选项EDo newly opened SaveAll stores ever lose money during their first five years of operation? SaveAll 新店开业是否亏钱也跟本文核心推理过程毫无关系。 本篇小结这一篇,我们探讨了评价题,这类题的关键就是要把握“原因(前提)➡ 结论”过程中的“隐藏”推理过程。 同时,评价题的特殊之处是,你必须分析选项的两面性,且两面能够给原文的结论带来截然不同的影响。 通常在考试过程中,直接思考出“隐藏推理过程”并不容易。较为实际的操作手段,还是先通过比对和观察选项后,进行一次逆向思考,来判定这个选项到底是不是隐藏的推理过程。 到此为止,【霞姐GMAT】的逻辑篇就全部结束了。在看完了我的逻辑篇章后,很多人会对霞姐的这套“逻辑”产生疑问(这种疑问对于语法同样会有):你会认为,对于GMAT 考题,凭什么是霞姐说如此去思考,就如此去思考? 诚然,条条道路通罗马,如果你本来就是一名逻辑思维很强的学生,你甚至不必在意我对于逻辑篇题型的分类。你甚至会认为,所有的逻辑题,归根结底,都是回到“逻辑链”,然后通过一种“题感”去判定选项的正误。 但霞姐想表达的是,对于大部分的学习者,在考试中,在短时间内面对大量的考题,不可能用一种极其平常和淡定的心态去对待每一个题。甚至很可能你本来是一个逻辑思维很好的人,但到了考场,逻辑就变得一团糟,连原因和结论都分不清了。【霞姐GMAT】所想给你的,正是一种略有“机械”的思考方式,你大可不必局限于这个机械方式的狭隘之中,但它必定可以在你六神无主之时,为你提供简单易操作的帮助。所以,在做题慌乱、无从下手时,想想霞姐强调的看逻辑词,梳理文章框架,形成逻辑链,这理应是一种让你更安心的方式。 至于对待逻辑题的具体方案,一百个老师会有一百种说法,而真正正确的,一定是你先通过使用一套并不完美的方法(例如【霞姐GMAT】)进行学习,然后逐步总结与归纳,最终形成只属于你的有效的逻辑思维。😁 如果你认为我们在讲解中提供的例题数量太少,希望通过更多带有“思维标签”的例题巩固思维路径这套方法,欢迎去我创办的魔力学院看看,网址是www.molistudy,com,那里有足够你刷题的题库,最棒的是每一道题都被打上了思维标签,还有我们团队里的交互设计师为你打造一个了一个非常棒的在线学习界面。 霞姐GMAT是啥?“霞姐GMAT”是由魔力学院创始人,原新东方GMAT名师张海霞根据自己多年的教学和创业经验整理出的一系列GMAT干货作品。 “霞姐GMAT”是一本书,它虽不能被称为“GMAT”圣经,但它无微不至,试图让更多GMAT的备考者远离繁杂无章的各种学习资料,只用好一本书解决所有的GMAT问题。 “霞姐GMAT”也是一种方法,通往GMAT的成功道路有很多条,但我们希望这条我们倡导的“思维路径”是一条最快,最轻松的道路。 谁是霞姐?张海霞,江湖人称“霞姐”。 从北大学霸到新东方名师,从新东方名师到最美丽的创业者。自2010年起在新东方讲授GMAT语法等课程,强调通过系统的语法学习来全面提升英语的写作、阅读等综合能力。曾创造新东方史上前无古人后无来者的公开课78人全满分记录;三个月玩虐考研跨考,从北航考入北大,“看透”是快速“突破”的唯一出路。讲课气场强大、逻辑严谨,风趣幽默,自认为已摸透GMAC老头们的出题套路。曾有学员上完课后赞曰“你的课太强大了,我语法肯定可以全对”。