阅读正文

关于短期备考+一点心得 [2018.02.26]

[日期:2018-11-19] 来源:ChaseDream论坛 作者:Junoll [字体: ]

3/3/2018更新:

今天收到了official score report的邮件,一周不到的时间,还挺快的。作文拿了一个average分数,5分,不高不低,没有检查拼写错误,当时就预计分数不会高了。上次没怎么说作文,就补充说明下。

楼主因为时间紧,所以比较取巧。一开始的时候做了一次官模,都没写完,但楼主也没什么时间好好学这个,就下了那些范文集合,然后拉出个十来篇看下,把觉得好的句式结构(i.e.可以不用动脑照搬的东西)记住,然后在通过后面模考练习下感觉。OG上楼主大概看了十来题,是属于一题五分钟写下point form,主要找fallacy,练出感觉就没继续了,全篇练习主要在第二次模考和四次曼哈顿模考里练的,控制在五分钟写大纲,二十分钟敲字,五分钟检查拼写,(这里提一下楼主考试时用得键盘和平时不一样,老是打错字导致没来得及检查拼写,大家可以注意下键盘问题),然后全篇控制在350左右,楼主觉得写一个比较strong的point比三个weak point要重要。

还有一个一个非常minor的点,如果大家有用曼哈顿模考的话,注意把浏览器的检查自动拼写关了,楼主前两次模考时发现错误拼写下有红曲线还想曼哈顿怎么没关这个,后来发现是自己没调浏览器(楼主用了Chrome)。

然后楼主把自己练习的五篇文章在文章最后面po一下吧,题目找不到了,因为曼哈顿账号还回去了,Prep也卸了,大家随便看看。

楼主复习时间紧所以只求中规中矩,不要拿个低分就好,大家有条件有时间可以认真点练习下,不要一上来就模板范文,力求找到自己的方式以及不断优化自己的模板语言,这个长期也是大有裨益的。

今天刚考完,想到之前在CD上拿了很多资料,所以决定来回馈下,提供一些短期备考的经验和关于考试的心得。

背景:

楼主英文应该算可以,毕竟高中大学都是英文环境里学习的,但是楼主属于数学比较好,但是语言学习能力较差的人,所以客观点的评价就是基础还可以,词汇量大概也就在日常使用中,没有背过任何词汇书。但是这里补充一句,GMAT不是一个英文测试,不然native speaker完胜所有外国人了,大家要有信心。

介绍下个人情况:

成绩:770 (考试状态不算最好,想着考试对自己好一点,早上多吃了点结果撑了一上午想吐,弄得午饭没吃下午跑去考试,所以奉劝大家还是按routine来的好),然后选了Verbal第一个考,没进入状态就开始考,差一点没做完,平时楼主都是提早完成的,(这里要说一下,主要原因是楼主蠢,一直以为75min的一半是45min所以要求自己20题时剩45min,每次提早做完也没多想,直到临考前一天想准备一下时间点时发现算不对,然后才发现一直都弄错了),反正考完第一个section差点想哭,觉得自己肯定完了,然后还没时间哭,因为憋尿急着赶厕所也是有点好笑)。

官方模考,第一次760, 第二次790,(此处有水分,楼主花了两个小时还四个部分都做完了),因为官模二考得发虚,所以租了个Manhattan账号做模考卷,做了四份,分数真的记不太得了,大概有740,700,680吧,680是确定的,因为那次做完惊呆了,大概是下午做了一套得了700还是710不甘心想晚上雪耻,然后反而被自己羞辱了……学真的时间紧,楼主大概只有一次数学拿了满分,Verbal的阅读相对不是很reader friendly,细节题找死你,就是练练感觉吧,虽然因为个人作死没给正式考试状态加分……

复习:

楼主是一月底突然打算想读Master然后上网查了查,很多项目二月底就截止了,而且一年只招一次,并且需要GMAT或GRE,简单查了下这两个考试情况,纠结了几天,最后报了二月底截止前的GMAT。报的时候完全不知道考试要考什么,完全是没办法了不管简单或难都必须得考了,不然得再等一年才能报名。

然后从开始复习到考试大概二十天,十天工作日,十天假期(春节假期加请假),楼主在职。本来一开始预计应该问题不大,感觉有小半个月可以学习的工作日,因为楼主一月底工作很闲天天摸鱼,但是后来一下子突然来了三份工作要做,于是每天加班回来累成狗, 楼主很怕自己太累了生病得不偿失,所以工作日里最后大概复习了十天左右,平均每天三小时左右。放假日子里每天大概早上两个小时, 下午四个小时,晚上两个小时这样子,最后两天给自己解解压,放松了下,大概一天五到六个小时。

心得:

好了,终于可以入重点了。先说大家都关心的Verbal。楼主之前做diagnostic test时候属于阅读和逻辑不错,语法大概是average。同意一个几乎公认的观点,投入精力和回报比率最大的一定是语法,逻辑次之,最后阅读。

关于语法 —— 楼主大部分时间都花在这上面了。 刚开始一边做OG一边看Manhattan的语法书, 但其实收效甚微。因为时间紧,楼主做什么都是赶时间,快,但是收货不多。大概到中后期开始发现这样不行,于是楼主终于开始针对错题不懂的每一道都上网查,主要看Ron大神的回答,(这里插一句,Ron大神真的是大神,后期楼主完全依赖他来复习语法),进行总结。然后会把错题记录下来。楼主总结分两轮,第一轮是第一次错题时把自己觉得重要的东西记下来,第二轮是考前几天把第一轮笔记里重要的东西总结归纳成大概几页纸,用作最后的复习。网上有很多大神总结的笔记都很不错,但是别人的长短可能跟你不一样,每个人笔记的方式可能也不一样,在构建起自己相对稳固的理解前,楼主建议不要随便依赖别人的笔记,容易理解错误。在考试后期的时候,楼主又看了一下Manhattan语法书,这一回才真的感受到这本的书的妙,有人说这本语法书有点太宽泛太基础,但是楼主觉得那种轻易总结“看见什么一定是错”的笔记比较危险,没有语义和逻辑的语法不叫语法。语法的精妙处在于他只需要你懂得最基本的法则,(基本就全包括在Manhattan语法书里了),然后带上你的逻辑和对语义的理解去做题。

关于逻辑 —— 楼主在逻辑上花的时间不多,除了前期刷题之外,楼主确实看了下各种逻辑总结分类,但是收益不多。因为楼主感觉GMAT的逻辑并没有到学术类的逻辑,其实很大依赖于common sense,那些所有的归纳的题型对楼主来说都没什么用,因为楼主看到题目的时候根本不会去联系这是什么题型应该有怎样的解答,当然承认可能是楼主练得不够多没法形成一个条件反射,有时间的同学还是可以尝试的。所以关于逻辑,楼主的技巧只是会注意一下common traps, 类似some people啊这种,其他的没有太多可以分享。

关于阅读 —— 大概就是为了队形,所以还是讲一下这个。因为除了OG和模考里的阅读,楼主基本没有做过其他阅读, 没有看过资料,也没有记录错题。感觉短期没法提升。所幸基础还不错。有时间的同学建议还是多读,提高自己阅读能力,在长期来看也是大有裨益的。

然后数学应该没什么好说的,楼主出国后属于学什么忘什么,幸好初中数学基础真的打得好,在此感谢初中数学老师和我大江苏中考给我打的基础。

IR的话,感觉也不用复习,简单的数学加上简单的语文,难点在于信息量大时间紧,学会掌控时间和取舍就好。

作文,楼主还不知道成绩,花了点时间适应考场键盘,最后没来得及检查拼写,希望不要错太多。大概学习下主要的fallacy,然后练习个五六次,熟悉了感觉就好。不需要你特别优美的语言,就是看个段落吐个槽而已,差不多就可以。

其他

关于参考书 —— 楼主开始属于每天下班回来刷一本书,快把Manhattan Verbal的全册都刷完了,这里的建议是语法书,和那本foundation of Verbal,(是这名字吧?有点忘了),值得看下,其余的至少对楼主而言没什么用,已经完全不记得了。

最后奉上一个网盘链接,楼主习惯手写笔记,所以放不上来,网盘里面是楼主搜罗来的东西,(此处credit to CD各位奉献者,楼主只是收集者,楼主曾经试图整合,但是东西实在太多了,大概五六十个G,所以失败了,楼主只有时间看了一点点,大家看着下吧。 )

链接:https://pan.baidu.com/s/1pMYDj4n 密码:3511

祝大家逢考必过!

1.

In this argument, the author concludes that radio advertising helps to make business more profitable. To support this argument, the author uses an example of a Cafe which used radio advertising and experienced an increase in business this year. The argument is flawed for three reasons.

First, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the use of radio advertising and the increase in business in the example of the Cumquat Cafe. The fact that there was an increase in business after the use of radio advertising does not necessarily imply a direct causal relationship between the two. There are many other possible reasons for the increase in business. For example, there could be a rise in the overall economy so that people had more disposable incomes and were willing to spend more and therefore the Cumquat Cafe experienced an increase in business. Another possibility is that the Cumquat Cafe has improved the quality of its products and services and thus attracted more customers this year. Without examining all other possibilities and ruling out them respectively, the author fails to conclude that radio advertising leads to improvement in business.

Second, the author also fails to establish a logical connection between increase in business and profitability of the business. An increase of 10 percent in business from last year's total does not necessarily translate into a 10 percent increase in profits. The additional revenues generated as a result of radio advertising could be well offset by the increase in advertising expenses. The author has to cite exact revenue, expense and profit figures to strengthen the argument.

Finally, the author makes a hasty generalization by drawing the conclusion based on only one example. There is no information provided to show that the cafe cited is indeed representative of local businesses. If the majority of local businesses are related to other areas such as medical services, the success of the Cumquat Cafe has no implication on most other businesses. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to demonstrate that the example used is not biased and represents the typical local businesses.

In conclusion, the argument is not convincing because of various logical fallacies and a hasty generalization.

2.

In this argument, the author recommends that an independent body should oversee the game industry and heavy penalties should be applied to companies that knowingly violate the rating system. To support the argument, the author points out that an electronic rating system is not working based on two reasons. First, the electronic game rating system is self-regulated;second, the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. For a couple of reasons, this argument is flawed.

To begin with, the author assumes that a self-regulated rating system with nominal fines for violations cannot work. This assumption,however, is unwarranted. The author does not provide any explanation to establish the logical causal relationship between a self-regulated system with nominal fines and ineffectiveness of the system but merely takes it for granted. The failure of this electronic game rating system could be due to many other factors, which should be carefully evaluated and ruled out before such a conclusive statement can be made. Without sufficient evidence to prove this causal relationship, the author has failed to reach a convincing conclusion.

Second, the author makes a hasty generalization regarding the use of electronic game rating system based on one such system only. The ineffectiveness of one particular system does not necessarily suggest that all the possible electronic rating system cannot be used for the game industry. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to discuss other available electronic game rating systems to prove that this particular system is representative of all.

Third, the author states the purpose of the rating system for electronic games in the beginning of the argument but the following statements do not actually logically follow the first sentence. While the author points out the rating system should provide consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine the appropriateness of the game, the author continues to argue that an electronic rating system is not working because it does not fulfil something else. There is no logical connection between different parts of the argument, a significant flaw that undermines the strength of the whole argument.

In conclusion, the argument as a whole is problematic because of unwarranted assumption, missing logical connection and hasty generalization. The author needs to supply more concrete evidence to support the argument.

3.

In this argument, the author states that Company X's latest model of digital camera is claimed to be the most portable, user-friendly digital camera and also an excellent bargain and it can be expected to live up to these claims. To support this argument, the author cites the example of the company's previous model, which excelled in all these areas last year, as evidence. This argument is flawed for a couple of reasons.

First, the argument rests on the assumption that the new model will beat as least as good the previous model. This assumption, however, is unwarranted.There are many different factors determining whether this model of digital camera is the most portable and user-friendly in the market. For example, other companies could have achieved technological innovation in the past year and now produce a digital camera that is much better than Company X's model in terms of portability and use-friendliness. Another possibility is that Company X may experience some changes in production process and the new model may not even out perform the previous model. The author has to demonstrate the comparison between Company X's latest model with other companies models to arrive at the conclusion that Company X's latest model is the most portable and user-friendly available in the market.

Second, the author does not provide any evidence to substantiate the claim that Company X's previous model was universally lauded as setting the standards in areas, in which Company X is promoting the latest model as the best. The author needs to provide more evidence such as reliable reports and market surveys to bolster this point.

Last, the author also does not provide any information related to the price of the latest model to prove the claim of "an excellent bargain", nor that of other models of Company X or other companies.Without such information, the conclusion on "an excellent bargain" is unfounded.

In conclusion, the argument as a whole is questionable because of lack of evidence and unwarranted assumptions. The author has to provide more evidence to strengthen the argument.

4.

In this advertisement, the author recommends the use of a new protein supplement called Train & Gain. To support there commendation, the author cites a recent study showing that professional body builders who used Train & Gain experienced a 20% increase in measured strength in three months. In addition, the author also points out that this product is now available

without prescription and therefore.

enable snon-professionals to achieve professional-level performance in just a few months. For several reasons, this argument is problematic.

First, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the consumption of the protein supplement and the increase in strength. The fact that two things happen together does not guarantee one must cause the other. There could be many other factors causing the increase in measured strength. For example, professional body builders could employ many other methods, such as intensive practice and healthy diets, to achieve greater strength. There is no evidence, except a recent study, to prove the direct causal relationship between the product and increased strength; even the study cited is also doubtful as the author neither provides the source of study nor explains more details on how the results was obtained, rendering the study unreliable. To strengthen the argument, the author has to provide more information on the study and evaluate other possible causes of increased strengths before making a conclusive statement that this supplement leads to increased body strength.

Second, the author assumes that non-professionals can achieve the same results as professional athletes. This assumption, however, is unfounded. Non-professionals and professionals generally differ in many aspects, such as their body conditions. A protein supplement works for professionals may not work for non-professionals. It is also likely that a protein supplement designed for professional athletes may contain some formula specially catering for this group of people and that it at best does not work, or in worst case becomes counter-productive for other groups of people. To strengthen the argument, the author has to demonstrate that this supplement works equally well for different groups of people.

In conclusion, the argument as a whole is flawed with missing logical connections and unwarranted assumptions.

5.

In this argument, the author concludes that most children born in America in the next decade will have a life expectancy greater than ninety. To support the argument, the author argues that each generation of Americans has lived longer than the preceding generations and the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. In addition, the author also points out that there is no sign showing that the progress of medical technology is abating. For several reasons, this arguments problematic.

First, the author provides no explanation or justification for the number of ninety in the conclusion. Even if the life expectancy is indeed increasing over time, the life expectancy of most children born in the next decade may not exceed ninety if the rate of increase is very low. Without further information on exact rate of increase in life expectancy,the conclusion reached is unfounded.

Second, the argument rests on the assumption that the current trend will continue in the future. This, however, may not be true, given the long time frame of projection. What happened in the past may not apply to the future, especially when the author is making a projection into the next ninety years from now on wards. There could be many uncertainties and changes that render the current prediction unreliable.

Third, despite the consideration of the progress of medical technology, the author fails to take into account all other important factors affecting life expectancy and assumes that medical technologies the sole factor determining the life expectancy of Americans. For example,the life expectancy of Americans may be severely affected if there is a large-scale war in the future. Another possibility is that increasing occur rences of mental illness, such as depression, result in a significant number of suicides, or even murders. The author has to evaluate and rule out all the other possibilities before making a conclusive statement that, provided medical technology progress well, the life expectancy of Americans will increase in the future.

In conclusion, the argument as a whole is flawed because of unwarranted assumptions and missing logical connections. The author has to provide more concrete evidence to explain the derivation of predicted life expectancy, the validity of prediction in a long time frame and consideration of other factors.

--------------------------------------

原文引自:
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1317661-1-1.html

参与讨论及查看更多的相关文章请访问【走出GMAT困境】
https://forum.chasedream.com/forum-34-1.html

打印 | 录入:steven
ChaseDream版权声明
最新活动

<< 查看更多 >>

2018 TOP MBA Winter Break
Coffee Chat
12-18 迈阿密大学商学院STEM
硕士招生宣讲会
(在线)
12-15 北京大学国发院 BiMBA
MBA招生咨询会
(北京)
12-13 Babson College 金融硕士 &
创业管理硕士交流会
(在线)
12-12 港大HKU 商科硕士招生咨询
会计 金融 市场 BA...
(深圳)
GMAT公开课 | 高效备考正确姿势
在线 12/12 12/19 12/26 1/2 1/9