GMAT和GRE考试都有逻辑题，而且难度都不低，很多考生都对这个题型束手无策。那么，考生能否通过互相借鉴来提升逻辑能力，两门考试的逻辑题存在哪些共同点和区别呢?下面小编就来为大家做详细分析。
GRE&GMAT逻辑推理题题型对比
1. 自2002年，美国ETS将原GRE考试中包含逻辑推理(Logical Reasoning)的Analytical Section取消，替换为分析性写作(Analytical Writing)。同时，GRE的阅读部分也包含有专门的逻辑阅读题型。
2. 在GMAT考试中，逻辑以Critical Reasoning的专有形式进行考试，提供短篇文章供考生分析后解题。
GRE&GMAT逻辑推理题考题实例对比
1. GRE逻辑推理题分析
A recent study of an insurance company s underwriters indicated that those who worked in pleasant physical surroundings were 25 percent more productive than their peers in unpleasant physical surroundings. Objective criteria for evaluating job performance included caseload and complexity of cases. This shows that improving workers environments increases those workers productivity.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion above?
A. On average, less-productive employees spend no fewer hours per day at their workstations than do their more-productive peers.(平均而言，生产效率低的雇员并不比他们工作效率高的同事在工作场所花费的时间少)
B. Unpleasant surroundings give employees less motivation to work hard than more pleasant surroundings do.(令人不适的工作环境，相对于令人舒适的工作环境来说，更不能激励雇员卖力工作)
C. The more-productive employees are generally rewarded with pleasant office space.
More-product(效率较高的雇员通常被回报以令人舒适的工作环境)
D.ive employees do not work any more hours than their less-productive peers.(效率较高的雇员并不比效率低的同事工作时间长)
E. Peer pressure discourages employees in crowded, unpleasant surroundings from making phone calls to their own family members during work time。(同行的压力使得在拥挤、令人不适的环境里工作的雇员不能在工作时间给家人打电话)
译文：最近对一家保险公司的保险商的研究表明，处在令人舒适的工作环境中的员工要比处在不大舒服环境的员工的工作效率要高25%。所以评价工作业绩也需要和工作与案例的复杂程度有关系。这表明，改善员工的工作环境可以提高工作效率。
以上哪项结论，如果正确可以削弱以上结论。
推理分析：段落推理是通过一项研究的结果：处在令人舒适的工作环境中的员工要比处在不大舒服环境的员工的工作效率要高25%，得出段落结论: 改善员工的工作环境可以提高工作效率.但是结果中的效率高和工作环境好二者谁导致谁，并不知道，所以得出工作环境好导致效率高。
本段是典型的Weaken题，重点在于结论。A、D的观点是效率低和效率高的员工的相同点，不能起到，Weaken的作用，B是支持结论，E是新观点making phone。选择C效率高导致工作环境好，与段落推理明显冲突，所以C是最佳答案。
2. GMAT逻辑推理题分析
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion would be most seriously weakened if it were true that
(A) there was a one-year delay between the completion of a pilot study for the experiment and the initiation of the experiment itself(在针对试验性研究的完成与开始试验本身之间有一年的间隔时间)
(B) people’s levels of immune-system activity are not affected by their use of medications(人们的免疫系统活性水平没有受到他们服用的药物的影响)
(C) a few people with high immune-system activity had scores on the test of mental health that were similar to the scores of people who had normal immune-system activity(免疫系统活性高的一些人在心理测试方面的得分一样)
(D) people who have low immune-system activity tend to contract more viral infections than do people with normal or high immune-system activity(与免疫系统活性正常或高的人相比，免疫系统活性低的人更易得过滤性毒菌引起的感染)
(E) high levels of stress first cause mental illness and then cause decreased immune-system activity in normal individuals(高度压力首先导致心理疾病，然后导致正常人的免疫系统活性的降低)
逻辑分析：段落推理为“该研究人员从免疫系统活性水平低与心理健康的低分数的联系中，得出结论，免疫系统活性实际上可以抑制心理疾病。但是不清楚两者之间谁可以导致谁，所以结论就过于武断，错误的可能性很高。
所以本题是标准的反对题，A、“间隔时间”与上述结论无关，B对推理毫无作用，C是共同点，不可能起到反对的作用，D与“心理健康测试”无关,E的内容如果实现就是因果倒置，最能削弱研究结论，所以是正确答案。
GRE&GMAT逻辑推理题对比总结
通过以上的例题分析，GRE与GMAT考试在逻辑推理部分，考查类型、问题目的类型、答案选择和思维模式都大致相同，所以考生可以这两相结合的进行复习备考，对于考生逻辑推理能力的提升，会有意想不到的效果。
以上就是关于GRE GMAT 逻辑推理题对比的经验分享，希望通过两种题型的分析，对于考生逻辑备考有所帮助。
