CR分类总结复习.doc

The first family: 特点： 所有在题干出现的信息都是正确的，即使原文论据错误，也必须利用起来，在选项中的正确答案必须涵盖了题干的信息，如果没有的，一定是错误的！ MUST BE TRUE： 1. Question Stem: If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true? Which one of the following conclusions is best supported by the statements above? The statements above, if true, best support which of the following assertions? Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the statements above? 2. 正确答案的类型： A. Paraphrase(重述题干的信息) B．所有题干信息结合 3. 不正确答案类型： A. could be true:可能正确的，记住你必须要选择必须正确答案！ B．exaggerated: 这里用到例如题干是some, 选项变成了many，绝对话的词语不选！ C．New information: 超出了题干的信息外的选项或者不是信息的结合体 D．The shell Game: 类似的现象，错误选项会利用题干的其中一个点，然后套用到和题干信息非常相似的点上！ E． Opposite:和题干提供的信息相反 F． Reverse: 数字或者逻辑结构的调换，例如本来是Many people have some type.变成了some people have many type 54. The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions. 逻辑链： 论证结构：前提-结论 Argument Premise: fewer restrictions, more advertising, less charge for specific service than the lawyers do not advertise. Conclusion: if state removes any restrictions, legal costs are less consumed. Situation?Consumer legal costs will be reduced if the state removes even one restriction on lawyers’ advertisements because the fewer the restrictions, the greater the number of lawyers who advertise, and lawyers who advertise charge less than lawyers who do not advertise. 研究显示，对律师做广告的限制越少，做广告的律师就越多。而一般做广告的律师收费比不做广告的律师收费要少。因此，本州如果取消所有对律师做广告的限制，所有人在法律方面的开销要比保留这些限制时的小。 Question Stem:（Must be true,原文所有点正确，选项的内容必须和原文一致） If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true? Reason