[問題] OG/GWD/天山 Boldface 每做必錯 該怎麼辦??

[sisco]

考前一個月 每做必錯 真的很慌張 該如何有效增加答對率呢???

我完全沒做過11th OG 就上考場 真的可以嗎??

請大家給我一些意見

[MH]

建議你讀題的時候注意一下關鍵字,有therefore之類的就是結論(但有時候會跑出來個internedian conclusion,要小心)..
我讀BF題時通常不會讀的很仔細,但重點是要讀的出來哪邊有轉折,BF通常就是在考這個東西...

[evelight]

Hi! sisco:

可以參考置頂文喔: <CR常見Q&A>
裡面有許多整理過的連結，相信對你會有幫助
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=7036
還有這篇是專講BF題的
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=7054


坦白說，BF題考的就是閱讀
MH說的沒錯，重點是要讀出轉折處
建議現階段先不要趕速度
慢慢的作幾題BF
試著去抓它的脈絡，ETS出題是有跡可循的
加油！

[MH]

http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=1527
九道BF題不知道你看過沒,參考看看,還有解釋呢

[sisco]

謝謝各位的資料
我這就來讀 如果有進步再來分享我的心得

謝謝!!

[林小馬]

;''( 考前一個月 每做必錯 真的很慌張 該如何有效增加答對率呢???

我完全沒做過11th OG 就上考場 真的可以嗎??

請大家給我一些意見

考前一個月其實時間還很充裕喔 別緊張
( 想想每天做一套模考就有三十套耶~~~ 真是太壯觀的數字了 :P )
還有OG 11th 沒做應該是沒關係吧 ( 當然你如果有時間也是可以衝啦 )
我也沒做 我很多朋友也沒做 題型和考點應該都滿類似的

至於BOLDFACE 一點點心得供參考囉

我覺得其實BOLDFACE反而比其他CR容易掌握喔
因為他不用太多推理 重點在掌握文意就行
我自己的感覺是 大部分的題目
可以用下面兩項做X軸和Y軸 而形成四個象限
(1) 作者贊成 or 作者反對 ( 作者觀點 or 對方觀點 )
(2) 資訊(support,evidence...) or 結論 (conclusion)
只要判斷粗體字是落在哪個象限就好啦
仔細看到選項通常都是類似
"first statement是一個evidence拿來support作者的觀點,
second statement 是作者的結論"
之類的東東

少數比較複雜的題目中
conclusion還會分成main和intermedian
資訊也有可能變成assumption或context
不過大部分沒那麼複雜啦
而且就算是複雜的題目 以四個象限來說也會刪到剩兩個選項吧

我個人對CR的感覺是
放棄什麼技巧 盡量用文意來判斷 我覺得他是在測驗思考的模式耶
四個象限其實是腦袋裡的自動反應 然後再去歸納出來的 不要當技巧用
therefore, thus...等字當然也是很好也非常重要的判斷工具 可是也不要當技巧用
一定還是以了解文意最重要喔

[fsab00037748]

我的Bold face題也常搞不清楚, 剛在找解決方法時,在阿多仔的GMAT討論區中看到以下的定義, 我覺得還蠻有用的, 大家可以參考一下

以下是幾個常在BOLD FACE裡面常出現的"角色"
Principle:

Fact:

Evidence:

Pre-evidence:

Background:

Consideration:

Premise:

Assumption:

Conclusion:

Inference:

What is the difference between conclusion and inference?


Principle: something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

Fact: something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

Evidence: what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

Pre-evidence: This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

Background: Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

Consideration: Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

Assumption: Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

Conclusion: Self-explanatory

Inference: Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?