Critical Reasoning
试题详情
题目：
Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska's government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government's plan is obviously working.
选项:
A、A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
B、Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government.
C、The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.
D、Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
E、Many of the economists who now claim that the government's plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.
答案:
D
提问：
有些问题我想问一下英吉老师，之前参加面授班的时候学习了管老师教我们做CR题目的第二种境界，当时他给我们连讲N套题目错误题目的数量只有1个到2个，当我自己下来用这样的做题思想和方式做题时发现会有很多的错误，比如这道CR题目，就是老管说过，问题叫读什么就读什么，一句也别多读，然后比较选项之间哪个更加近一些。很多时候我根据这样的方法做不出来，或者做错，准确率在65%到70%徘徊。比如ID230这道CR题，问题问weaken the argument，所以我读且只读了最后一句，说的是很多钱累计到了一个特殊账户，所以政府的计划是有效的。 然后做题排除剩下A D两个相关的选项， 都是讲这个钱和这个账户的关系，D说的是 把钱从别的账户转移到特殊账户，A讲的是把钱从这个特殊账户取出来。 然后我根据这个题目问的是weaken，然后A讲的是钱取出来，感觉比D更要近一些，所以选择了A。结果答案是D。但是根据我当时的现有资源，我确实选不出D这个选项，我想问是不是可以有在不增加我现有资源的情况下有可以选择出D选项的方法（我改动我自己调动资源的哪一步），或者是是不是我应该把这个CR题目全部读了；还有个问题就是老管说过，假设题里，选项中有否定词的感觉好，如果只有一个选项有否定词，直接就选了，多个选项有的话，就比较哪个考得近。并且还给我们举了个例子，说有个什么老师为了反驳他，把CR的所有假设题目都找来看了，发现没有否定词的是正确选项的题目只有几个，而且那些题目的选项都是全部没有否定词的。当然我承认，这个方法在做一些假设题的时候确实很方便，解题速度也很快，但是我在做假设的时候发现了好几道答案没有否定词的，比如ID3012，ID168。那么现在问题来了，我之后的做题过程中是应该继续用老管讲的这个方法，还是把原文全部读了，然后把选项带到逻辑链断掉的地方读前后？
评分:
0
浏览:
5419
