讀書百遍，其義自現，閱讀最強技巧的就是閱讀。下面是小編整理的2017年GMAT考試閱讀推斷題解題技巧，希望對大家有用，更多訊息請關注應屆畢業生網。
Inference簡介：
Inference題，顧名思義，推斷。就好比，我前文說到“廢話不多說了”，就意味著，以下說的話都不是廢話(當然不太嚴謹，嚴謹一點的推斷是：以下說的廢話少)。
Sometimes, the answer to an inference question is obvious or simple. If you cannot think of a reason why an inference answer choice is incorrect, then it is most likely correct.我的方法的核心就是這句話。
Inference認識：
inference題，推斷的資訊源於文章資訊。題目答案往往是文章沒有直說的.內容，需要一點點的努力，把答案推出來。與logic structure區別的一點是：答案不需要利用選項提供的新資訊。
方法前提：
按照小安的方法把supporting idea題進行整理，因為這樣做能讓大家快速定位原文資訊。
方法使用：
逐一排除錯誤選項(這個方法比較笨，就像樓主本人似的，但在複習時還是理解每個選錯的錯誤原因比較好)。
錯誤的選項為3個類別：
1.無關選項：文中就沒提到任何相關的資訊
2.有關選項，資訊使用有誤：文中有相關資訊，但原文資訊與選項不一致
3.有關選項，推斷有誤：
3.1推得太遠，原因是需要引入文章外(我們自己想出)的理由。
3.2推得太近，原因是選項只是敘述文中的原有內容(也就是沒有推斷，變成了找細節)。【此類錯誤很少，往往以其他理由排除ABCD選項後，E雖然推斷太近，但仍然是答案】
3.3推錯了，原因是有相關資訊，但推倒過程中出錯，是干擾項的主要部分，因為乍一看很正確，仔細一看原文推斷不出選項。
後記：
1.使用該方法並不一定能所有題都正確，因為選項雖然推斷正確，但一些詞彙，如all、every等，也有可能讓選項錯誤。在這裡就先不列到錯誤型別裡，因為所有題大家都應該注意這些細節問題。
2.正如大家所看到的3.2，這個方法還有bug，因為樓主本人就遇到一道題，排除了其他選項後，剩下的一個選項就是替換了原文的幾個詞(很多細節題就是替換原文一些詞彙)，當然也可以理解是一種推斷。按道理說，原文的細節不應該是推斷題的答案，現在我也沒法解釋這個問題。這個bug有待修復...
獻上例題一道OG12-33
原文：
In 1988 services moved ahead of manufacturing as the main product of the United States economy. But what is meant by “services”? Some economists define a service as something that is produced and consumed simultaneously, for example, a haircut. The broader, classical definition is that a service is an intangible something that cannot be touched or stored. Yet electric utilities can store energy, and computer programmers save information electronically. Thus, the classical definition is hard to sustain.
The United States government’s definition is more practical: services are the residual category that includes everything that is not agriculture or industry. Under this definition, services includes activities as diverse as engineering and driving a bus. However, besides lacking a strong conceptual framework, this definition fails to recognize the distinction between service industries and service occupations. It categorizes workers based on their company’s final product rather than on the actual work the employees perform. Thus, the many service workers employed by manufacturers— bookkeepers or janitors, for example—would fall under the industrial rather than the services category. Such ambiguities reveal the arbitrariness of this definition and suggest that, although practical for government purposes, it does not accurately reflect the composition of the current United States economy.
選項：
The passage suggests which of the following about service workers in the United States?
(A) The number of service workers may be underestimated by the definition of services used by the government.(正確 文中：the many service workers...很多service工人被算到了industrial category裡。所以，數量會被低估)
(B) There were fewer service workers than agricultural workers before 1988.(推遠了：文中第一句有1988年服務成為第一大行業，但沒有支援資訊，推不出service workers和agricultural workers之間誰多誰少)
(C) The number of service workers was almost equal to the number of workers employed in manufacturing until 1988.(推遠了 同上)
(D) Most service workers are employed in service occupations rather than in service industries.(推錯了/干擾項：貌似正確，並不是more service workers in service occupations than service industries，工人該是什麼工作就是什麼工作，不是因為定義方法的不同，就使service workers變多了)
(E) Most service workers are employed in occupations where they provide services that do not fall under the classical definition of services(該選項推的沒錯：classical definition:service workers屬於service行業，US definition:service workers屬於industrial行業。但是!!most service workers 顯然不正確，文中只是說many service workers怎麼樣，而不是most——ETS你太狡詐了!!樓主一開始A選項沒看出underestimated是什麼意思，就放過了，算成E了...)
