thangvietnam wrote:
thank you Mike
I read the articles already.
there is no strategy for this type of argument. this is strengthen/weaken question but this question dose not require prethink an assumption.
what we do after we read/understand argument and before we read/analyse the answer choices, for this type of question. ?
"look for what increase the belief that the 2 pieces of evidence are related"
is what we need to know before going to answer choices.
is that right?
Yes. You see, the GMAT excels at producing question that demand flexible logical reasoning. You absolutely cannot afford to get stuck in a rut, applying the same routine to each question. Instead, many GMAT CR questions demand something entirely new, analysis unlike that demanded by any previous question. This question is an example of such a question. It is not a "question type." It is an out-of-the-blue question all of its own, and you have to engage deeply with the logic of the situation itself. Many questions on the CR, both in the OG and on the real GMAT, will be just like this. Yes, there are a few "types", like "find the assumption", where you definitely can do some "pre-thinking" before you look at the answer choices. Nevertheless, do not get attached to that luxury. Many questions ask you to engage the logic-in-context of the situation, and there's no recipe/procedure/method that will save you from this deep and contextual logical reasoning.
Here's a post that discusses this a little more.
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/formal-log ... reasoning/Do you know the magazine entitled
The Economist? I would highly recommend this magazine, both for the tremendous overview of world political and economic issues it provides, and for high level of language, rhetoric, and argument is maintains. See this post:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/reading-fo ... economist/If you read the argument in that magazine --- you will be reading messy real world arguments, arguments that are inextricable bound to what is unique to each situation. You cannot use recipes or formulas to understand these arguments. You need to understand context itself. Reading
The Economist magazine would give you excellent preparation for the wild diversity of possible arguments in the GMAT CR.
Think about it. The whole point of the CR section on the GMAT, the reason business schools consider this an important topic, is that in the business world you will face new situations and new arguments and new issues all the time. The folks who respond to a new situation or argument with formulaic methods will not get everything out of the situation that he could. By contrast, the person who recognizes the unique logic of each new context --- the person will be on the cutting edge, always poised to draw profit from each new challenge.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep
close
