寻找GMAT逻辑因果联系的方法

    例：An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic. The U.S. Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the United States and the Balaland Republic, we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

    首先，读GMAT考试逻辑题题干，知道这是weaken题。请立刻在脑海中想到答案就是最有效“反对”前提(后文均用“因为”代替)的一个。按此思路，我们就要找到“因为”。

此篇GMAT逻辑题原文的意思：

    因为：某团体组织人在非战时进行对抗B国的军事训练;并且，法律禁止美国公民在非战争状态下参与对他国的军事对抗行为;

    所以：该组织应被调查和指控。

    GMAT攻略逻辑题的解法思路：我们要反对“因为”，那么答案一定要对“因为”的内容进行质疑。由于这里的“因为”有两句，所以为我们筛选质疑哪个“因为”增加了难度。但实际上，我们要质疑的不是法律，所以，第 二个因为就可以排除在答案之外。因此，你就要去在5个选项中找存在对第一个因为产生质疑的选项。

    答案：a. The Balaland

Republic is currently engaged in a bloody and escalating civil war.

b. Diplomatic relation between US and Balaland were severed last year.

c. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the US goes to war against Balaland.

d. The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens, but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad.

e. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is first launched.

    很显然，c 恰好是用“该团体只是训练人员已备战时使用，并非是在非战争状态下对B国进行军事对抗”反对了第一个因为，所以直接选择就好了。

    当然，我们最好也去看一下其他GMAT逻辑题的选项，以防备自己的疏漏。a \\b选项不能质疑，反而使支持，c在文章中没提到，e和第一个因为不相干。而且原文第一句就说了是investigation，并没有错。因此，只有c 正确。

    GMAT逻辑题的解法林林总总，不过用因果联系的方法解题也是很迅速的，这种GMAT逻辑题的解法在很多场合很奏效，大家可以参考运用到GMAT逻辑题的实战中去。

    以上就是小编总结的寻找GMAT逻辑因果联系的方法，因果联系是我们复习GMAT逻辑必须要掌握的知识。所以希望同学们复习的时候能多掌握这样的GMAT攻略，这对于我们的考试复习很有帮助。