uclb5550

做逻辑的最大误区就是臆想太多，不管是GMAT还是LSAT, 都应严格遵守文章说什么就是什么的白痴原则。 你自己想的往往和严格按逻辑推理出来的大相径庭，而且就个人经验来看，即使是第一眼看上去再象的答案也要把其他选项看完后再做选择。美国人出题往往是把你主观上最容易想到的答案摆在那，这些选项通常是看上去很有诱惑力但实际上是错误的。 如果一个人不懂如何推理，不懂逻辑的基本原理，不懂审题的的基本程序， 那他（或她）很容易陷入到臆想的泥沼中，而不能自拔。

对于本文作者提出的训练方法，本人读起来也觉得非常可怕，甚至直冒冷汗。 这种方法完完全全地背离了逻辑思维的基本原则。 说白了，做逻辑的最终目的是让你抛去主观臆想的思维习惯而养成能按照给出事实进行合理推断的习惯。 如果按照作者所说自己去想一些possible answers, 那还要逻辑推理干吗？我看作者还是不要把问题看的太简单了。　

最后说一句，不懂别装懂，　错误观点摆出来会误导别人的。

uclb5550

非常欣赏你的态度，但不支持你的观点。我感觉你的方法对于简单的题也许有用，但对大多数难题意义不大。而且考试时的真题的套路并不象平常练的题一样明显。所以，你的“搜肠刮肚按照ETS思路想出尽量多的可能答案”的建议，本人确实不能苟同。　其实在阅读题干时的主要任务应是搞清那些是事实，那些是结论，至于能不能预测出答案方向并不是很关键。

uclb5550

I dont think GMAT critical reasoning is difficult. But i do think misleading way of practice will make it more difficult.

uclb5550

Hi, friend, i really dont think both of our discussion are waste of time here. These ideas are actually helpful for everyone who want to catch the insight of CR. Sorry for my former inadvertent expression, i retrieve it now. However, i still insist that your recommendation is somehow counter-productive in many cases. The reason is simple. For all of the CR questions, in my view, 80% of them are quite easy and cannot set any problem for most of people as long as they can comprehend the ariticle properly and have a basic grasping on reasoning principles. In fact, what really matters is the remaining 20% of questions. These questions finally make the difference between the scores 700-750 or 750-800. For your recommended technique, personally i think people can solve the 80% questions without it. On the contrary, people will fall into the tricky trap much easier when they cultivate the habit of prethinking in cracking the 20% of questions. At least, i have ever made a reservoir of such mistakes in LSAT. The question i explained in another topic in this room about new music funs' preference between live performence and recorded music is very illustrative and classical example. If you have interest, you can see that question and take a moment to think whether your prethinking way is applicable in such a situation.

Finally, i really appreciate your unselfish spirit in the gruelling work of summarizing your ideas and of adverting them to others. Without your 抛砖引玉，we have no such a valuable chance to explore the deeper side of CR. Sincerely, i wish this wonderful opportunity will lead both of us into a better understaning about logic reasoning. I really enjoy the discussion with you and wish you good luck, my friend!