В этом виде заданий (parallel-argument questions) есть отрывок текста, вопрос и пять вариантов ответов к нему. Вы должны будете определить, который из предложенных вариантов наиболее близок по характеру построения к процессу рассуждения в тексте. Кстати, в самом GMAT-е будет не более одного задания этого типа.

Продолжение. Начало читайте здесь.

Анализ задания

Прежде чем приступать к анализу самого задания, обратите внимание на способы решения:

1. Постарайтесь разложить весь текст на небольшие отрывки, а затем закрепите за каждым из них определенную букву.
2. Разложите на простые составляющие все варианты ответов. Закрепите за каждым составляющим определенную букву.
3. Сравните полученные структуры со структурой, которая у вас получилась в тексте.

Приступаем к анализу задания.

Задание:Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

Вопрос: The flawed reasoning of the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?

(A) Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

(B) If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the windowpane will surely break. The windowpane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.

(C) If a piano sits in a humid room, the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning. Therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.

(D) Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

(E) More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.


Анализ:

The original argument's line of reasoning is essentially as follows:

Предпосылка: The well-paid engineers at MicroFirm do not quit their jobs.
Вывод: If CompTech engineers are not well paid, they will quit their jobs.

To reveal the argument's structure, let's express it using letters as symbols:

Предпосылка: All A's are B's.
Вывод: If not A, then not B.

The reasoning is flawed because it fails to account for other possible reasons why MicroFirm engineers have not left their jobs. (Some B's might not be A's.) Choice (D) is the only answer choice that demonstrates the same essential pattern of flawed reasoning. To recognize the similarity, we can rephrase the argument's sentence structure to match the es­sence of the original argument:

Предпосылка: All people who practice diligently, choice (A), achieve perfection, choice (B).
Вывод: If one does not practice diligently (not choice (A)) one cannot achieve perfection (not choice (B)).

Choice (A) reasons essentially as follows: One certain A is B. Therefore, if A then B. (This reasoning is flawed, but in a different respect than the reasoning in the original argument.)

Choice (B) reasons essentially as follows: If A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A. This reasoning is sound (not flawed).

Choice (C) reasons essentially as follows: If A, then B. Therefore, if B, then A. (This reasoning is flawed, but in a different respect than the reasoning in the original argument.)

Choice (E) is not a deductive, and cannot readily be expressed symbolically. Without additional evi­dence, it is impossible to determine the strength of the argument.

Помните:

1.Вам нужно определить параллельную логику, а не последовательность построения вывода.

2.Логическое построение умозаключения не является сутью самого текста. Если вариант ответа полностью повторяет суть самого текста, это не означает, что данный вариант верный. Хотя этот вариант нельзя исключать.

Продолжение следует...