OG12 13题 请教！

vernetta

13. In Swartkans territory, archaeologists discovered charred bone fragmentsdating back one million years. Analysis of the fragments, which came from avariety of animals, showed that they had been heated to temperatures no higherthan those produced in experimental campfires made from branches of white stink wood,the most common tree around Swartkans.
Which of the following, if true, would,together with the information above, provide the best basis for the claim thatthe charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids?
(A) The white stinkwood tree is used forbuilding material by the present-day inhabitants of Swartkans.
(B) Forest fires can heat wood to a rangeof temperatures that occur in campfires.
(C) The bone fragments were fitted togetherby the archaeologists to form the complete skeletons of several animals .
(D) Apart from the Swartkans discovery, there is reliable evidence thatearly hominids used fire as many as 500,000 years ago.
(E) The bone fragments were found in several distinct layers of limestonethat contained primitive cutting tools known to have been used by earlyhominids.
答案：E

My question is：文章让加强的是“ the charred bone fragments are evidence of the use of fire by early hominids”。但是E选项的意思是证明了early hominids用过primitive cutting tools，这句能证明他们use fire吗？是不是有些牵强啊。
另外想说一点，这个题到底是什么意思呢？是想证明early hominids用火把自己烧了吗？哈哈，笑死我了。不好意思，也许是我理解错了。求解释！3ks a lot！

hilanjingling

A,B,C都是无关选项吧，D有关，可是文章提到的事one million years，而D却

说500000years，年数不对。E我也感觉有点牵强，可是除了E，就没有选项了啊。

天叉包子

这个问题问的好，我最早看gmat的时候也问这种问题。后来明白了：gmat整个思路都在强调推理的逻辑性，或者说，逻辑的严密性。从作文可以看出，任何一个statement，在用有限的文字表达的基础上，都可以找出它不严密的地方。
题目的答案，只是让该推理更严密（或指出哪儿有漏洞），而不是让它无懈可击。因为：no matter how you PRESENT your reasoning process, i can always constitute a valid argument to your statement.
这个题和你问的122，很类似，为了strenghten A-->B 最后的答案都是：A 是valid/ 存在的。
仅仅说A的validity当然不能        COMPLETE             A-->B这个逻辑，但是的确可以          HELP       这个逻辑。
通过个人experience, 我感觉你是这个弯没有转过来。

vernetta

我觉得你说的特别明白，非常感谢~我自己再好好理解下。怎么才能慢慢的绕过这个弯儿呢？Do you mind sharing with me some of your experience on how to step over the bottleneck?

天叉包子

我是把OG里面的很多（错的+觉得好的）题都分类的，按照：premise是啥（抽象出来，类似我前面说的 一个东西，事情，结果这样），conclusion是啥，答案是啥(这个事情存在;还有其他因素;.....) 这个过程帮我比较快的绕过了那个弯。个人感觉，千万别光用strenghten, weaken, evaluate。。。这样的问题的性质分类。否则相当misleading, 因为他们本身就是非常相关的。按照Premise和conclusion的类别分，对我帮助比较大。至于我自己的瓶颈情况，我觉得还是有时候做题时候想得太多，不知道咋解决，maybe 少做点题。

anyways, 个人理解