GMAT逻辑考试的常见题型有哪几类?其对应的解题技巧又有哪些呢?本文将着重对GMAT逻辑考试中的常见题型及解题技巧深入的讲解，希望能够为考生备考GMAT逻辑考试带来帮助。

　　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?

　　先梳理题目：

　　(1)一些立法者觉得应该让那些两次犯重罪,随后又犯重罪的罪犯终身监禁，他们认为这样可以显著减少犯罪(第一个黑体部分)，因为这可以使那些有犯罪倾向的人永远远离街市。

　　(2)这个观点忽略了这样的情况：那些在监狱待了两期重判的家伙已经老得几乎不能再次犯罪，让这些人待在监狱里会削弱监狱收治年轻罪犯的能力，而年轻罪犯犯下重罪的比率要大得多了。

　　结论：让那些老得几乎无法犯罪的家伙充斥监狱可能会收到与立法者的期望恰得其反的效果(第二个黑体部分)。

　　这里我再标注一下(Statement 原因 结论 标志词)：

　　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.

　　因此，本题的结构是：立法者提出观点---立法者的结论----立法者的理由---作者对立法者的观点提出反对----作者的结论---作者的理由。因此我们很容易得出第一个黑体部分是立法者的结论，也就是这个argument要反对的结论;第二个黑体部分是这个argument的主要结论。将这个逻辑链条梳理出来之后，我们可以发现正确答案为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.

　　练习：

　　TN-14-Q28

　　Environmental organizations want to preserve the land surrounding the Wilgrinn Wilderness Area from residential development. They plan to do this by purchasing that land from the farmers who own it. That plan is ill-conceived: if the farmers did sell their land, they would sell it to the highest bidder, and developers would outbid any other bidders. On the other hand, these farmers will never actually sell any of the land, provided that farming it remains viable. But farming will not remain viable if the farms are left unmodernized, and most of the farmers lack the financial resources modernization requires. And that is exactly why a more sensible preservation strategy would be to assist the farmers to modernize their farms to the extent needed to maintain viability.

　　In the argument as a whole, the two boldface proportions play which of the following roles?

　　A. The first presents a goal that the argument rejects as ill-conceived; the second is evidence that is presented as grounds for that rejection.

　　B. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes cannot be attained; the second is a reason offered in support of that conclusion.

　　C. The first presents a goal that the argument concludes can be attained; the second is a judgment disputing that conclusion.

　　D. The first presents a goal, strategies for achieving which are being evaluated in the argument; the second is a judgment providing a basis for the argument’s advocacy of a particular strategy.

　　E. The first presents a goal that the argument endorses; the second presents a situation that the argument contends must be changed if that goal is to be met in the foreseeable future.

　　============================================================

　　TN-18-Q41

　　Astronomer: Observations of the Shoemaker-Levi comet on its collision course with Jupiter showed that the comet broke into fragments before entering Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1994, but they did not show how big those fragments were. Nevertheless, some indication of their size can be inferred from spectrographic analyses of Jupiter’s outer atmosphere. After the fragments’ entry, these analyses revealed unprecedented traces of sulfur. The fragments themselves almost certainly contained no sulfur, but astronomers believe that the cloud layer below Jupiter’s outer atmosphere does contain sulfur. Since sulfur would have seeped into the outer atmosphere if comet fragments had penetrated this cloud layer, it is likely that some of the fragments were at least large enough to have passed through Jupiter’s outer atmosphere without being burned up.

　　In the astronomer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

　　A. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the truth of that claim.

　　B. The first is a claim that the astronomer seeks to show is true; the second provides evidence in support of the truth of that claim.

　　C. The first and the second are each considerations advanced in support of the conclusion of the argument.

　　D. The first provides evidence in support of the conclusion of the argument; the second is that conclusion.

　　E. The first is a circumstance for which the astronomer seeks to provide an explanation; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the explanation provided by the astronomer.

　　以上内容对GMAT逻辑考试中的常见题型及解题技巧进行了详细的讲解，考生可以根据文中重点进行针对性的练习，掌握并熟练应用GMAT逻辑试题的解题思路，从而在GMAT考试中取得好成绩。