《GMAT逻辑1》.docVIP

Critical Reasoning CHAPTER ONE The Critical Reasoning Challenge Do you like to point out the assumptions in others’ arguments? Do you like to home in on logical flaws like a detective and analyze precisely how arguments could be made better, or worse? Then GMAT Critical Reasoning is for you. So start dissecting op-ed pieces and cutting the contestants on television debates down to size. When you see your GMAT score, you’ll be glad you did! Which of the following can be most properly inferred from the passage above? Mastering the Critical Reasoning question type will ensure an excellent GMAT score. No question type contained on the GMAT is represented in more sections of the GMAT than is Critical Reasoning. Op-ed pieces and television debates contain content that is related in some way to material tested in GMAT Critical Reasoning. Logical flaws and assumptions are question types that appear only on the GMAT. Thinking like a detective has no impact on one’s GMAT score. Explanation: Choice (C) is correct. The final two sentences strongly imply that dissecting op-eds and debates will lead to a higher score, which, in fact, it certainly can. There must, therefore, be some relation between GMAT content and the content of these forums. Let’s take a look at the other answer choices. Mastering Critical Reasoning is necessary to achieve a top GMAT score, but is not sufficient; one must ace the other content areas of the test as well. So (A) is not inferable. There’s no basis for (B) either—the number of sections on the test is outside the scope of the argument. (D) isn’t inferable. For all we know, other tests, such as the LSAT, test these same areas. And (E) represents the opposite of what the passage suggests: The instructor strongly implies that the proclivity for playing detective is relevant to (hence, inferably bodes well for) ones Critical Reasoning performance. So win arguments! Prove people wrong! Amaze your friends! Be the life of the party! Get a high score on t