Question

GMAT写作逻辑通常有哪些漏洞

Answer 1

　　GMAT写作逻辑常见漏洞：

　　1、表述不清的用词

　　在GMAT写作的题目中，诸如 “few”, “many”, “more”, “less”, and
“some”之类的用词常可以看到，这些词虽然在一定程度上具备数字含义，本身却并无法表达出具体的数字，可以说是含义相对模糊不清的用词。如果题目中的论述，特别是涉及数据的部分是建立在这些模糊表达上而得出的结论，那么这个论述本身就存在问题，常常能成为可攻击的逻辑漏洞。

　　2、不恰当的比较

　　有时候，作文题目中会首先列出事物A的前提和结论，并根据A和事物B的相近性，把前提和结论套用到事物B上，这样就往往会产生不恰当的比较，从而形成逻辑上的问题，举例来说：曾看到过一篇例文，讲述人和狗的肥胖问题，把人的肥胖原因和新城代谢等因此直接套用到狗的身上然后得出结论，这就是一种不恰当的比较。

　　3、基本学科类知识

　　虽然GMAT考试本身出于公平的原则并没有对各类学科的高深专业知识提出要求，但考生还是需要具备一定的相关基础常识，比如GMAT考试中经常涉及的社会、文化、经济、科技等常见主题的基本概念，都应该有所了解。因为GMAT作文中，常常会出现一些涉及这些基本知识的逻辑漏洞。如果考生能够对这些知识有所了解，就能在文章题目中发现更多问题。更多相关内容请点击》GMAT写作副词的重要性。

　　4、错误的一概而论

　　有些题目，常会根据一个较小的例子来得出一个很大的结论。这种以小见大的做法看似很好，但其实常常存在问题。比如一类事物中的A,B,C可能具备一些特性，能够概括出某个共同的结论，但这结论并不一定就能适用于该类事物中的所有不同个体，而这种错误的一概而论，也可以成为考生论述中的突破口。

　　5、极端态度和观点

　　如果大家读过一些专业性较强的原版杂志报纸，比如《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》，就会发现其中很多文章都具备GMAT作文考试最喜欢的特质：思考全面，观点平衡，有理有据。极端的观点和结论在GMAT作文中鲜少有正确的时候，也往往会是最主要的攻击论点。因此，如果考生在题目的结论中看到了诸如“must”或者“undoubtedly”之类的用词，那么这就是极端结论的最好证明。

Answer 2

GMAT作文原题：
　　The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
　　“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
　　逻辑漏洞：
　　1. false analogy: The food industry is not analogous to the color film industry.
　　2.causal oversimplification: Other factors that may contribute t to the cost decline of the printing cost should be considered and ruled out.
　　3.gratuitous assumption: The conclusion of the argument is based on a gratuitous assumption that the company can minimize cost and maximize profit because the company has been conducted for 25 years.
　　范文：
　　The author assumes that since organizations engaged in color-film processing were able to increase efficiency and cut-down costs over a period of 25 years; same must be true of Olympic Foods, which is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary. The arguments is based on questionable assumptions and weak analogies and appears to be a result of a hasty generalization.
　　The main problem with the author’s reasoning is the weak analogy he develops between the two “processing” industries. One fails to see any logical connection between the two and the author makes no effort to show the connection either. The two industries are too dissimilar to be compared. For example: frozen food industry faces problem of storage, transportation, contamination etc; no similar problems are observed in the film-processing industry. Even the markets for the two differ widely. The argument could have been strong if the author could show the missing connection or if he had compared the frozen-food industry with a similar industry.