*출처: Beat the GMAT forum에서 문제를 스크랩, 전문가 답글을 참고해 풀어봄.
*다섯가지 파트와 에세이 중, critical reasoning만 담았음.
1[Math] Problem solving
2[Math] Data sufficiency
3[Verbal & Essay] Reading comprehension
4[Verbal & Essay] Sentence correction
5[Verbal & Essay] Critical reasoning
*하이라이트친 부분은 CR의 유형
(Example1) Productivity
According to a recent magazine article, of those office employees who typically work 8 hours at the office each day but sometimes say that they will work at home on a particular day, 25 percent actually work less than one hour. At the same time, over 90 percent of those same office employees believe they are more productive working at home than working in their office.
The statements above, if true, best support which of the following conclusions about the office employees discussed in the article?
a.On average, the office employees working at home for a day work fewer hours than office employees working at the office.
b.10 percent of the office employees are less productive working from home than working in their office.
c.At least 15 percent of the office employees do not define productivity exclusively in terms of the number of hours worked.
d.At least 25 percent of the office employees can complete the same amount of work in one hour at home as in 8 hours at the office.
e.Some of the office employees make statements regarding their productivity that are not in fact true.
전체 직원을 100으로 보고 푸는 방법:
재택근무를 하는 25명은 사실 1시간도 일하지 않는다
90명은 재택근무가 훨씬 생산적이라고 생각한다
벤 다이어그램으로 생각해볼 때, 교집합에 해당되는 15명은 (집에서) 1시간도 일하지 않으면서 재택근무가 훨씬 생산적이라고 믿는다 => 생산성과 시간을 별개로 생각한다.
정답 c
(Example2) Appliance
Almost every modern kitchen today is equipped with a microwave oven, mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households. Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument of the consumer advocates?
(A)Microwave ovens have taken much of the joy out of cooking.
(B)There have been many reported incidences of people who have been scalded by liquids superheated in microwave ovens. (데다)
(C)Absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged to be acceptable as “standard.”
(D)There is no such thing as a completely safe appliance.
(E)Stoves and ovens that use natural gas consume energy much more efficiently than microwave ovens.
정답 c
나도 b라고 생각했는데, debatable해서 올라온 문제였나보다. 전자렌지가 완전히 안전하지 않기 때문에 필수 전자제품군에 들어가면 안된다는 논리를 설명할 수 있어야 하는데, (vice versa 완전히 안전하다면 필수 전자제품군) b는 그렇지 못하다는 것.. 아래 GMAT 선생의 댓글을 참고하라.
"B cannot be the correct answer, that is for certain. The conclusion is that microwaves should not be accepted as a standard appliance and the reason is because they are not completely safe. We need to strengthen this relationship. We need for "not completely safe" to mean "not a standard appliance." B does not help with this and C does."
(Example3) Evaluating argument: Uranium
Most of the world's supply of uranium currently comes from mines. It is possible to extract uranium from seawater, but the cost of doing so is greater than the price that uranium fetches on the world market. Therefore, until the cost of extracting uranium from seawater can somehow be reduced, this method of obtaining uranium is unlikely to be commercially viable.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?
(A) Whether the uranium in deposits on land is rapidly being depleted
(B) Whether most uranium is used near where it is mined
(C) Whether there are any technological advances that show promise of reducing the cost of extracting uranium from seawater
(D) Whether the total amount of uranium in seawater is significantly greater than the total amount of uranium on land
(E) Whether uranium can be extracted from freshwater at a cost similar to the cost of extracting it from seawater
정답 a
문제를 푸는데 있어 앞에 두가지 유형보다 훨씬 '생각의 범위'를 조심히 해야하는 유형이다. 일단 문제에서 발견해야하는 것은 논점의 오류(?). 바닷물에서 추출하는 비용이 시가보다 비싸다는 이유에서 바닷물에서 추출하는 것은 안된다 라는 논리인데, 이 부분은 미래 시가가 더 올라가는 경우(a)에 해결된다.(비용을 줄이지 않고도) 즉, 시가가 올라가는 경우를 계산에 넣어야 풀 수 있는 문제인거다. c나 d가 안되는 이유는 문제의 핵심인 "바닷물 추출방법이 현실적으로 가능한가 아닌가"를 전혀 설명해주지 못하기 때문이다.
..............-_-이 유형이 제일 어렵다. GMAT 선생의 댓글에 따르면 보기를 보고 혼란스러워지기 전에 답을 정하란다.
"In any evaluate the argument question, it is best to focus on potential problems in the original argument. As you read the argument stimulus, consider what assumptions might exist that need to be clarified. One important strategy that I emphasize for all strengthen, weaken, and evaluate the argument type questions is that you should try to anticipate the correct answer before polluting your mind with the answer choices."
No comments:
Post a Comment