The following appeared in the editorial section of a West Cambria newspaper.
A recent review of the West Cambria volunteer ambulance service revealed a longer average response time to accidents than was reported by a commercial ambulance squad located in East Cambria. In order to provide better patient care for accident victims and to raise revenue for our town by collecting service fees for ambulance use, we should disband our volunteer service and hire a commercial ambulance service.
对于知道False Analogy这种错误类型的同学来说,看到此题,会迅速寻找出类比对象:West Cambria和East Cambria,以及volunteer ambulance和commercial ambulance。但是,再接下去,就会发现这个错误根本无法下手去写:两个类比到底哪里有错???
其实在这道题目中,上述这两个所谓的类比错误,其实根本就不存在。这道题真正的False Analogy错误在于,通过两个地方的救护车的工作效率的比较,得出我们这个地方应该使用商业救护车的服务。这个推理是拿我们这个地方和West Cambria/East Cambria相类比。如果这道题单单只靠False Analogy的表象特征来分析,就会出现上述情况。
事实上,如果我们回过头来老老实实看GMAT的官方陈述的话会发现:Argument所考查的初衷,并不是考察学生是否知晓这些逻辑错误范式。相反地,GMAT在官方陈述中明确指出:A specific knowledge of the essay topic is not necessary; only your capacity to write analytically is assessed. 可见,GMAT出题人其实假定所有同学是在不知道任何逻辑错误范式的前提下设计题目的。
【新GMAT改革:读题在Argument写作中的重要性】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02