E错在后半句:需要被更改的是文中的strategy,而不是BD2所描述的situation
C:the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument's advocacy of a particular strategy. 该advocacy可以是正向的,也可以是负向的
in (b) and (d), the pronoun "its" is completely stranded; there's no antecedent for it anywhere.
takeaway:
if a sentence contains a COMPOUND NOUN (X and Y), you CANNOT use a pronoun to refer to just X or just Y, unless you use "the former" or "the latter" to make the distinction explicit.
* see #109 in the yellow og11. in that problem, all four of the incorrect answers try to use the singular pronoun "his" to refer to 1/2 of a compound noun. that's forbidden.
DO NOT post additional details of that problem here.
* this rule still holds even if X and Y take separate pronouns.
for instance:
joe and jane both have prestigious jobs, although her salary is much higher
would still be disallowed under the strict rules generally endorsed by the gmat, even though "her" can only refer to jane (since joe is male).
in this case, you'd just have to substitute "jane's" for "her".
that's the way it goes.
in (d), it's technically incorrect to use "they" because there is no place in which both systems are mentioned at once (e.g., with "and").
In D "or rapidly spinning collapsed star" is not a modifier, correct? Therefore does not refer to the "first pulsar" Right?
Ron:you know, i don't really know how you would classify that construction. it probably doesn't count as a modifier, because it doesn't actually modify the noun -- i.e., it doesn't expand upon, restrict, or change the meaning of the noun in any way, as modifiers do.
in any case, regardless of how you may or may not choose to classify it, you should know what this sort of construction (comma + OR + words) does: basically, it provides a definition of the word that comes before it.
e.g.
an own-goal, or goal accidentally scored in one's own net and counting towards the other team's score, is possibly the most embarrassing feat that a soccer player can accomplish.
here, the words following "or" (goal accidentally ... score) are the definition of the term "own-goal".
--
disclaimer:
the above usage is definitely not the only use of "comma + OR"; a much more common use for that construction is as a conventional conjunction, connecting two parallel structures. however, you should know this less common construction, so that you don't immediately mark it as wrong upon seeing it.
'to be sighted' is better for at least two reasons.
(1) 'first NOUN to be VERBed' is generally the preferred form in discussing the results of human efforts/actions/interference/perception/etc., while 'first VERBed NOUN' is generally used to indicate inherent qualities of the noun.
for instance, the following sentence is preferred:
henry bishop was the first musician to be knighted by a british monarch. --> knighting is performed by humans
the following is NOT preferred:
henry bishop was the first knighted musician in britain. --> this makes it seem as though being 'knighted' is an inherent quality with which henry bishop was born, or that he acquired it naturally/accidentally in some other way
(2) the word 'sighted' means 'having the sense of sight', so this sentence also contains the amusing alternative interpretation of referring to a pulsar that can actually see
Choice e:first of all, the word 'discovery' is missing. that's a crucial shift in meaning: it's the discovery, not the pulsar itself, that was 'announced'.
also, the word 'while' - which is sometimes used to indicate contrast - creates a strange ambiguity here: on first reading, it appears to suggest that the announcement (which took place in '68) happened during the summer of '67; this is the usual sense of 'while' occurring in this place in a sentence. (normally, if used to mark contrast, 'while' appears in front of a sentence.)
if 'while' is used for contrast, then it indicates that contrast IN ADDITION TO simultaneity. it's specifically used to describe two contrasting things that are simultaneously true.
yes that's awfully specific, but we can afford that kind of specificity because there are plenty of other contrast transitions (whereas, but, although, even though, yet, etc.) to describe situations that don't fit the 'simultaneity' criterion.
There are 2 problems with A.
- Major problem is "THE other infections." THE is too definitive here, carrying the connotation of "every single one of the other infections."
* THE is also incompatible with "such as":
- Correct: I never read this book, but I read the other books on the shelf.
- Correct: I never read this book, but I read other books on the shelf, such as "Right Hand, Left Hand" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
- Incorrect: I never read this book, but I read the other books on the shelf, such as "Right Hand, Left Hand" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
- Minor problem is "what they had not..." vs. "something they had not..." The "what" construction is awfully strong, suggesting that this was THE ONE THING they hadn't thought possible.
* As an analogy, compare the meanings of "I want to do what I love for a living" and "I want to do something I love for a living." The first suggests that the speaker has one particular field in mind; the second doesn't.
D:ability只能接to do!
E: an ability 是“dolphins are capable of recognizing themselves in mirrors”的概括性同位语
语义!B选项用that划分出语义层次,不是conducted operations,have greatly downsized,shut down altogether这三项平行,而是have greatly downsized,shut down altogether这两项平行,用that从句划分出去conducted operations
(b) is the best choice here.
(a) is vague because it's overly indirect: the meaning of "investigate changes ... as to their effects" is unclear. what's more, it's probably considered unidiomatic as well, at least in this sort of context.
(b) = correct
the participle "investigating" follows "experiments" immediately. no filler words are necessary; this is good concision.
the wording is clear; there are no awkward double possessives, etc., as in some of the other choices.
"would" is used properly here, as a past-tense form of "will". (i.e., if this sentence were translated into the present tense, it would read "...that changes ... will have")
(c) is ridiculously wordy; there's no way you should give this choice any serious consideration. if you don't realize pretty quickly that this choice is wrong, you should go back and read through a bunch of correct OG answers, trying to internalize the sights and sounds (the "vibe") of the correct answers.
(d) "changes in working conditions' effects" is at best awkward and vague, and at worst ambiguous: the intended meaning is the effects of the changes, but this sentence seems to indicated the effects of the conditions themselves. in other words, a literal reading of this sentence seems to indicate that the conditions themselves haven't changed - only their effects have. that's not the intended meaning of the original.
(e) "what the effects" is ungrammatical.
also, in constructions of this sort, "what" is generally redundant / unnecessary; it's better merely to say "to investigate X" rather than to say "to investigate what X is" (or other such wordy construction).
allay 减缓
1、需要用the xxx结构 只剩下ACE
2、C resulting from 不对 因为result主语不应该是The cottontail rabbit,而是这整件事情
3、本身有专门的名词形式的比动名词更好,the removal 比the removing好。
resulting from 为什么不能作状语修饰has increased?
老师,但是伴随状语不是也可以表示结果吗,那这里的resulting from为什么不可以呢?
因为先因后果,但resulting表原因,所以不对
resulting from是表原因, resulting in 是表結果.但兩者作為伴隨狀語都不對. verb+ing伴隨狀語是[本身]表達[結果]或同時[發生]
m.
中心词是have?
第5集看不了,有解决办法吗?谢谢
《毕出21套》第6套第5题
题目:ZT死前5天有A毒的症状,但是死后的骨头检查没有检测出异常A毒水平,可以判断ZT不是因为A毒死亡的
A:和文章相反
B:ZT的死可能是某种中毒,但不是A毒
C:ZT的症状不是因为吞噬了致死剂量的A毒导致的,ZT不是因为A毒死亡的,所以ZT不是吞噬了致死剂量的A毒引起了症状
D:文章没有提到
E:文章没有提到
为了时间问题,只考虑尾数即可,4的4次方位数是6 6的正整数次方,位数都是6,1的尾数是1,加起来是13,所以K的4次方要以1结尾。(我不相信自己,就拼命算了好几遍,选项里就是没有1)3的4次方=81
A. 新客成功率和其它学校一样——没有更高于,更好于一般水平——直切主题——正确
引申:往往答案是很简单的逻辑——一步到位法,不过度解读
关于数目和比例的问题,由此看此题考的是比例,不是数目。也许新客数目多也不一定行——比例低一样代表成功率低/effort少。题目说成功是指努力把不可能捐的新客变为可能,要的是比例的提高,不是广撒网的人数。当然咱们不能用倒推法,那么重点关注题目倒数第二句的最后。它给出了定义。
B.新客捐量比老客量多——跑题——错误——且是反驳——首先判定为错误。并且题目的重点是人数,选项是体量。
引申:量与数的关系——虽然从量上看新客是高于老客,新客成功了,但若本题换成weaken反驳(SU表现不错——新客成功),此选项就对了吗?
答:依旧错。看似新客好于老客,印证了标准,实则是一个经典的跑题——谈人数的时候讲量,谈量的时候讲人数,混淆。何况此题的数目要的是比例。
通过选项再次摸清题目重点:有双重否定的陷阱。题目从SU表现好——转到不好——又问支持——实则问表现不好,那么表现好的选项则为weaken反驳(比如此项),表现不好的选项反而是支持support. 摸清逻辑后切记,带到最后一个选项,尤其C后,做到D、E时会忘和糊涂,可草稿快速记录重点。牢记而本题要的是support——表现不好——新客没成功。
C.老客自己找上门——标准的重点是开发新客成功——无关——错误
引申:翻译成老客自找上门要好于翻译成fund-raisers在老客上的失败。这是两件事,不做过度解读。
就算老客失败,选项就对了吗?一样错误。标准要的是新客的成功,不等于老客的失败,不能做联想,不做过度解读。
再次确定题目的标准:新客的成功。老客这样那样与否,与解题无关。
D.如前,新客给的量多——不是新客数多——错误——并且是反驳——首先判定为错误。虽然量多,新客好于老客,但方向跑题,就算题目换成反驳,一样错误。比如一个新客捐了一个亿,而50个老客一共捐1万;或者5老客里捐了4人,100新客里捐了5人。到此再次明晰题目要求,不是捐款量,而且捐款人数。
引申:即便是人数,另有关于人数数量和比例之分的题目,可衍生参考,考试注意对应考点。
这里如果谈综合比例,是自己和自己比的比例,新客+老客的成功比例,不同于A是和别人比的比例。所以和自己比的话,比例期待值是低的,因为新客成功率低,那么如何评判,比例低就是好吗?这个不好评判,幸好也没出现在选项里,这里GMAC给留了一命。。。没给相关选项加难度。谁让它体量数目比例一起考,题目复杂选项会简单,题目简单选项就复杂。
E.跟B和D一样在讲量——错误——而且仍是反驳——首先就直接判定错误。
引申:幸好,BDE,不管是平均量、总量还是分量,量都不能代表人数比例(如D里例子),若真出选项考到人数比例,怎么考,官方应该也没想好:和别人比还好说,自己比的时候怎么判断比例值与付出的努力的关系,综合比例低就一定代表付出了吗?再结合A的逻辑,就更复杂,所以估计这种情况下官方不会再考深,但其它的比例题可另行研究。
总结:关注此题只在讲一件事:新客到底成没成,成或不成,都是一件事,其它事件如老客之类首先排除。
学会举一反三,虽然有些题目降了难度,逻辑方向、逻辑目标等等会有不同程度的删减和降难度,但真实考场遇到的各种题各种情况都会有。要摸清逻辑,不因一道题的降难度而存侥幸做题。
其次本题留了考生一命:关于新客成不成,实际上只给了一个选项讨论到,如果另给个选项也讨论到(那就完蛋了。。。),而说的是新客成了,那需要清晰的辨析前后逻辑。
另外,正如大牛们所说,考试当场不可能分析这么多,而且大多数人会当场丧失逻辑分析能力,那么如果有各种大牛们的可行的“感觉”分析法,当然更好。重点是一切还得建立在练习的基础上。虽然到时候遇到的是新题,但商科逻辑思维方向是可以摸索出来的。平时学校的课程一直都有在增强这一块,有形无形中。
这个真的是although没看到造成错选的。。。
为什么Alvin那里选4啊。。
1坚持 insist
2命令 order command
3建议 suggest advise recommend
4要求 ask,demand,request,require
像这种有交集的CR题,可以考虑画图法做:
1. Asthma is less common, 所以Asthma是小圆
2. Hay fever is more common,所以是大圆
3. 一个小圆和一个大圆交叉,交叉面积占小圆的95%,那么交叉面积占大圆肯定小于大圆的95%
D推不出来