[字彙] 邏輯問題請教

[woody3724 (woody)]

我是剛接觸GRE的新手

最近開始練習邏輯題目

但是做了十題只對一題

非常沮喪

請問大家是如何練習邏輯的呢?

能否用下面兩題示範一下大家的邏輯思維

　1. Editorial:

　　About 20 percent of professors at Torellia National University were not
educated in Torellia. The average pay of professors at the university who
were educated in Torellia is about 10 percent lower than that of professors
with comparable levels of training and experience who were educated outside
Torellia. These figures clearly indicate the existence of a university
policy, though probably an unwritten one, of favoring foreign-educated
professors over those educated in Torellia when determining salaries

Which of the following, if true,most seriously undermines the editorial's
conclusion ?

　　(A) The salaries of professors at the university are increasing more
slowly than the salaries of people with comparable levels of training and
experience employed by corporations.

　　(B) The business school of the university, where most of the professors
who were educated outside Torellia teach, must pay high salaries to its
faculty to compete with salaries available to them from corporations.

　　(C )The benefits other than salary offered to the university’s
professors are about the same for professors educated in Torellia as for
those not educated in Torellia.

　　(D) The university has an explicit policy setting broad salary ranges for
professors at all levels of experience.

　　(E )Most of the professors at the university who were educated outside
Torellia are native-born citizens of Torellia.

這題我覺得五個選項都無法破壞社論的結論

請問為什麼答案是B

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.

Argyropolis' subway platforms were built to accommodate eight-car trains,
but no trains longer than six xars have ever been used. Subway overcrowding
has recently prompted officials to propose using eight-car trains, but for
the platforms to accommodate such trains, the trains must be stopped with a
degree of precision that train drivers cannot reliably achieve now nor be
retrained to achieve. Therefore, overcrowding cannot be eliminated simply by
using longer trains, given that____________.

Which of the following, if true, most logically completes the argument?

(A)far fewer people used the subway system when it was built 25 years ago
   than use it today
(B)seven-car trains cannot carry enough passengers to eliminate the
   overcrowding
(C)subway officials have not seriously considered any means of eliminating
   overcrowding other than using longer trains
(D)nine-car trains cannot be accommodated at the existing platforms
(E)the current overcrowding, although frustrating to passengers, does not
   violate any subway safety laws

我這題我選C 因為我認為倘若政府不考慮其他增加車廂以外的方法

那麼單純增加車廂的這個方法無法解決人潮問題

但是答案卻是B

能否解釋為什麼我對於C的解釋是錯的

謝謝

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 163.26.36.158
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/GRE/M.1464843037.A.D6D.html
→ kalinidd57  : 1. 作者說學校對留學過的老師比較好，若要削弱論點
→ kalinidd57  : 的話，B說因為要留住某學系老師要花比較多錢，剛好
→ kalinidd57  : 學系中留學過的老師比較多，而不是學校對留學老師
→ kalinidd57  : 比較好，只是剛好
→ kalinidd57  : 2.作者最後說人多無法靠較長的車廂解決，因為他們
→ kalinidd57  : 試過用七節也無法緩解人潮。C的意思沒有直接回答作
→ kalinidd57  : 者後面的論點，但是B直接指出長車廂不可行，因為人
→ kalinidd57  : 太多
→ kalinidd57  : 邏輯題中可以先找作者的論點，這樣找答案比較好找，
→ kalinidd57  : 希望有回答到你的問題
推 meinlvc     : 大方向：前提不可違背、錯誤類比、topic
→ woody3724   : 請問第一題的B選項  留學過的老師較多的學校要付
→ woody3724   : 較多的薪水才能和公司競爭  不就代表他們喜歡留學
→ woody3724   : 過的老師  所以才更希望留住他們嗎? 這樣不就沒削弱
→ woody3724   : 論點了?
→ kalinidd57  : B是說那個系的薪水比較高不論有沒有留過學
→ kalinidd57  : 學校的business系（大部分老師留過學）需要付比較多
→ kalinidd57  : 的薪水才可以與業界競爭，這樣選項有看懂了嗎，wher
→ kalinidd57  : e的那一串是補充形容business系，如果忽略括弧這句
→ kalinidd57  : 很好懂吧，學校服多錢給系上老師（剛好有留學的很多
→ kalinidd57  : ）