舉例分析GMAT邏輯解題技巧

　　GMAT邏輯測驗的常見題型有哪幾類? 其對應的解題技能又有哪些呢? 本文將側重對GMAT邏輯測驗中的常見題型及解題技能深刻的講授，願望可以或許為考生備考GMAT邏輯測驗帶來贊助。

　　TN-16-Q11

　　Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.

　　In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

　　先梳理標題：

　　(1)一些立法者認為應當讓那些兩次犯重罪,隨後又犯重罪的罪犯畢生羈系，他們以為如許可以明顯削減犯法(第一個黑體部門)，由於這可使那些有犯法偏向的人永久闊別市井。

　　(2)這個概念疏忽了如許的情形：那些在牢獄待了兩期重判的家夥已老得險些不克不及再次犯法，讓這些人待在牢獄裏會減弱牢獄收治年青罪犯的才能，而年青罪犯犯下重罪的比率要大很多了。

　　結論：讓那些老得險些沒法犯法的家夥充滿牢獄大概會收到與立法者的盼望恰得其反的後果(第二個黑體部門)。

　　這裏我再標註一下(Statement 緣故原由 結論 標記詞)：

　　Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.

　　是以，本題的構造是：立法者提出概念---立法者的結論----立法者的來由---作者對峙法者的概念提出否決----作者的結論---作者的來由。是以咱們很輕易得出第一個黑體部門是立法者的結論，也便是這個argument要否決的結論;第二個黑體部門是這個argument的重要結論。將這個邏輯鏈條梳理出來以後，咱們可以發明準確謎底為B。

　　A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.

　　B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

　　C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.

　　D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.

　　E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.