SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（九）Flaw (part 1)
　　Prompts for Flaw questions:
　　• Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument?
　　• The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it . . .
　　• The reasoning in the argument is questionable because the argument . . .
　　Before you look at the answer:
　　1. Pinpoint the main conclusion in the passage. (Read my previous Main Point post.)
　　2. Separate the premises from everything else. After you find the main point, don’t assume that all the other statements are premises; they might include opposing viewpoints, background information, and concessions.
　　3. Ask yourself, “Do the premises, especially as they are stated in the passage, support the conclusion, especially as it is stated in the passage?” In other words, once you discard everything else, how well do the premises support the conclusion? The reason you want to focus on exactly what the premises and the conclusion state is that you do not want to subconsciously make the argument better than it actually is. Do not help the author. Look at what he actually said and then decide whether his evidence stacks up. (See “weaken” questions)
　　Make sure you are not reading anything into the conclusion that is not there. (“Thus, there is no evidence that Mar has life” is very different from “Thus, there is no life on Mars.”)
　　Wrong answers will often describe a flaw for a conclusion that the argument never actually reached. (For the conclusion saying that there is no evidence of life on Mars, the answer choice which states the argument “presumes, without providing justification, that the lack of evidence for a claim proves that the claim is false” would be wrong because the argument does not conclude that there is no life on Mars –only that there is no evidence of life on Mars.)
　　4. In your own words, describe the flaw. Try to avoid looking at the answers until you have forced yourself to describe at least one flaw or weakness in the stimulus.
　　Then look for the answer that most accurately describes what youdescribed.
　　1. Focus on the active clause of each answer to help yourself move through the answers faster.
　　2. The correct answer must describe exactly what is happening in the passage. Make sure every word of that answer correlates with some part of the passage. In other words, translate the abstract terms into concrete terms from the passage. If there is only one example in the passage, for example, the answer choice with “examples” is probably wrong.
　　3. Check your answer by asking yourself, “If I remove this flaw, would that fix the argument?”
　　Common Flaws
　　1. False contrapositives
　　• Negating both conditions without switching them.
　　• Switching both conditions without negating them.
　　• The correct answer will usually include one of these words: necessary, required, sufficient, or ensured.
　　If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.
　　Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
　　(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
　　(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
　　(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
　　(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
　　(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.
　　2. Causation
　　i) A happens before B does not mean that A causes B.

　　GMAT考试逻辑入门指导汇总>>>>

考试应用推荐：
你问我答	资料分享	在线模考	章节练习