Critical Reasoning (批判性推理)作為以邏輯能力為代表的典型題目，更是需要你時時刻刻保持清晰的思路。就CR而言，CR Bible邏輯聖經給我們提供了一套很實用的思考體系。今天yjbys網小編將帶大家瞭解CR當中的一個重點題型：Method of Reasoning 演繹題。
Method of Reasoning的常見提問方式：
The method of the argument is to
The argument proceeds by
The argument drives its conclusion by
Which of the following describes the technique of reasoning used above?
Which of the following is an argumentative strategy employed in the argument?
The argument employed which one of the following reasoning techniques?
簡而言之，Method題型裡面，作者會問你問你原文作者用了什麼樣的論證手法(argumentative strategy, technique, method)
解這型別的題目，首先需要你去讀懂原文的論證過程，所以建議你首先去分析哪句話是conclusion，哪些句話是premises。並且，有時候即使我們分析完了conclusion和premises，也不一定能立刻就選出選項。通常選項會用一些抽象詞彙來替代原文的Premise和conclusion。而我們要做的，就是判斷這些抽象詞彙是否準確地形容了premise和conclusion的性質，如果原文的句子能夠和答案的說法對號入座，那麼答案就是正確的。
以下例題摘自Prep12 Question Pack
Case Study 1
Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.
Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will stil not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.
Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?
A. Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between no change and no decrease
B. Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change
C. Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen
D. Showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect
E. Pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the effect that Sonya predicts it will have
解析
原題解構-邏輯釋義
Sonya:
Premise: C地政府準備提高香菸稅收，但是該地香菸價格會依然較低。
Premise: 香菸的消耗量不會怎麼受影響。
Conclusion: 政府從香菸方面的稅收也不會堅守。
Raoul:
Premise: 香菸的消耗的確不會減少。
Premise: 可是政府的香菸卻不再是最低價，
Conclusion: 所以我們會看到C地出現很多非法運輸香菸。
題目問Raoul(以下簡稱R)是如何反擊Sonya(以下簡稱S)的，即Raoul的反擊手法。R提到了提稅之後，雖然香菸價格不會上升(這裡是贊同了S的推理)，但是會出現更多非法運輸煙(這是第S忽略考慮到的)。非法運輸煙出現之後擠佔政府的份額，從而政府的香菸稅收會變少。
A. Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between no change and no decrease
A. “通過區分no change和no decrease來質疑S的支援證據。” 也就是說R去質疑了S的`premise。
逐項分析：實際上R是贊同了S提出的兩個premise的基礎上來weaken對方。所以選項內說questioning the support說法錯誤。
B. Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change
B. 通過提出這個改革的一個結果來質疑S的結論。
逐項分析：出現非法運輸煙這是提稅的一個結果，所以可以選B：by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change
C. Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen
C. 提到S如果為自己的預測區原因例項例的話，S的論證會更堅固。
逐項分析：R並未去建議S要引入新的例子。排除
D. Showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect
D. 提出S提到的原因並不是造成該種結果的唯一原因。
逐項分析：R提到了某個原因(提稅)可能會有多個結果，而不是說一個結果會有多個原因。
E. Pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the effect that Sonya predicts it will have
E. 指出某個措施沒有S預測的那麼強力的效果。
逐項分析：其實S本身也預測提稅的效果比較弱，不會影響香菸價格，所以在這方面，S和R兩個人並沒有什麼衝突。
Case Study 2
Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Consider, for example, postal workers: they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But is this really true? What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered?
The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?
(A) Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
(B) The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
(C) Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
(D) The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
(E) The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
解析
原題解構-邏輯釋義
第一句話似乎概括了原文的conclusion:衡量服務工作者的效率是很複雜了。接著舉了一個例子：郵遞員遞送越多的信就會被認為越有效率。接著作者提出了一些質疑：如果遞送的越多，相應的延誤和丟失的情況越多怎麼辦呢?
先提了一個通常的觀點，接著對這個觀點進行反駁。提出了說：遞送數量越高的郵遞員“服務質量”不一定高(延誤和丟件可能比較多)
簡化一下這個提問：the objection is based on doubt on which of following. objection就是最後一句，問我們這個objection是基於對哪句話的質疑而提出的，也就是說這個Objection肯定和下面那句話是衝突的，我們只要找到衝突的那句話就好了。
A. Postal workers are representative of service workers in general.
A. 郵遞員能夠作為服務行業的代表。
逐項分析：Objection並未反對郵遞員的代表性，Objection甚至還順著郵遞員這個思路舉例子，說明Objection是贊同把郵遞員作為服務業代表的這種看法的。
B. The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.
B. 遞信是郵遞員的主要工作。
逐項分析：同樣的，Objection也承認了這個看法，以郵遞工作的數量和質量來代表郵遞員的productivity.
C. Productivity should be ascribed to categories of workers, not to individuals.
C. 生產效率應該衡量一個工種，而不是一個個人。
逐項分析：這是無關答案，這裡的Objection並未談到整個行業或者個人的效率。
D. The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.
D. 在計算productivity的時候服務質量可以被忽略。
逐項分析：這句話和Objection衝突。Objection提到了了說信件延遲和丟件怎麼辦，是為了說明服務質量應該被考慮進productivity。
E. The number of letters delivered is relevant to measuring the productivity of postal workers.
E. 遞信的數量和郵遞員的生產效率相關。
逐項分析：這是個迷惑答案，注意，Objection並未否認“遞信數量和生產率的相關性", Objection是否認“只關注遞信數量的行為”。也就是說Objection認為，衡量productivity的話，不僅要看郵遞數量還要看郵遞質量。
