• The correct answer usually offers new evidence that makes you doubt the conclusion without directly contradicting the original evidence in the passage. “Mr. Zhang will be a good addition to our finance department because he has worked in banks in Wall Street.” New evidence: “Mr. Zhang worked as a computer programmer in Wall Street.” This new evidence does not contradict the original premise, but it does cast doubt on the original conclusion. Another possible answer: “Mr. Zhang worked in Wall Street for a total of two weeks before being let go.” Still another: “Mr. Zhang recently had a big fight with our current finance VP during a M&A discussion.” Notice, this evidence is unrelated to the original premises; it has nothing to do with Wall Street. So do not skip an answer choice because it does not address the points raised in the original argument. Focus on the new unfavorable light shining on the conclusion.
• Some arguments will tell you that two events are correlated (happened together) and then conclude that one event causes the other. The problem with this kind of causal argument is that it relies on many questionable assumptions. If the conclusion states that A causes B (If reading my posts, a reader’s understanding of CR is increased), look for evidence that says
- B causes A (A reader with good understanding of CR tends to read my posts).
- C causes B or A or both (CDer whose English is superb are more likely to read my posts and have better understanding of CR).
- A and B are not actually correlated (The survey overestimated the increased understanding of CR for most readers after reading my posts).
Any evidence that supports one of these three possibilities will weaken the conclusion that A causes B. However, I do hope by reading my posts, you can improve your understanding of CR eventually.
