argument范文

argument范文篇一

GRE argument官方满分范文分析

argument全部官方范文分析

写在前面的话：

1、官方范文的重要性不言而喻，论坛里对官方范文的态度也有褒有贬，有人说这些6分的官方文章都是大牛写出来的，我们学不来，于是有的同学的重心就转向了北美范文。但有一点是不可否认的——官方范文是真的6分，可是ets从来没承认过任何一个北美范文是六分的，尽管也确实都是很好的文章。

2、关于argument的重要性：很多人认为argument相对于issue来说容易些，也更好操作些，更容易拿高分。我个人认为这是个误区。我们最后拿到的成绩是个平均分，没有人知道具体每篇是多少。尽管有的同学会猜测自己得分是多少多少，但是猜测毕竟是猜测。因为游戏是ets定的，他的标准和我们心中接受的标准肯定是不一样的，打个比方，看看后面第三篇满分范文，让一般人看，估计没有几个人会毫不犹豫地给满分，甚至高分，但在ets眼中它就是满分；另外，实际上新东方的模版写出来的argu文章和官方范文给出的满分文章是有很大差别的，主要体现在是一个是零散凑成的（所谓的让步式攻击有时只是形式上的）而另一个是有核心思想的，我会在后面的分析中具体说明。既然这样，那完全有可能最终4分是来源于3分的argue加5分的issue，而不是反之。所以说，我们有可能高估了我们写argument的能力。

3、对于官方范文，实际上这些看上去很天马行空的文章，潜在的蕴涵了ets所要求的所有要点。之所以很多人看了很多遍没有看出什么可借鉴的地方，源于两点：一是没有和awintro上的要求相对应起来看，二是没有把有限的6篇官方范文进行横比。。

4、本文整体结构：

第一部分awintro中A部分重点语句的归纳和梳理，方便与后面的分析相对照。这里所有的英文均一字不差的摘自awintro。同时也作为我的另一篇文章“awintro的解读”中的argument部分的补充。

第二部分是我的对于全部6份官方范文（结合awintro）的分析，本文属于个人观点，一家之言难免存在偏颇和不足之处，恳请大家多多指教。欢迎讨论哦！

第三部分为总结。

第四部分为了显示不是纯扯淡，并让我的证明更加具体，我按照我分析出来的结果也独立写了一篇文章，请大家狂拍。

注：我把awintro和没有加入分析的六个范文放在附件里了，欢迎大家下载。

5、ets就像是一个羞涩的女孩，从来不会直接告诉我们她想要什么，但同时，也在无时不刻的不在暗示我们她想要什么。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

第一部分：awintro的归纳和整理。

1、在拿到题目后应该找出这些：what is offered as evidence, support, 

or proof；

what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded；what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof；what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated。总结一下：即论据，结论，推理过程中的未加证明的假设，论据中的潜在后果。这四点都是需要我们尽量展示在第一段里面的。

2、同时，还要考虑原题目中的逻辑链：In addition, you should consider the structure of the argument。在这过程中更重要的是：sometimes implicit steps in the thinking process and consider whether the movement from each one to the next is logically sound。这是我们攻击的要点，尤其是隐含的逻辑步骤。

3、在分析时：You will not be expected to know methods of analysis or technical terms.随后在范文中可以看出，几乎是没有那种像新东方那样精确错误名词的，而只是就着错误本身的逻辑进行分析。不需要给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，如果拽那些名词就给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，嘿嘿那既然是专业的要求也就更加苛刻了。

4、awintro中举一个例子：For instance, in one topic an elementary school principal might conclude that the new playground equipment has improved student attendance because absentee rates have declined since it was installed.论证的思路为：（1）意识到存在它因you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,（2）提供具体的它因 to offer some common-sense examples,

（3）从结论考虑，怎样才能使论证完整有力，即如何改进and perhaps to suggest what would be necessary to verify the conclusion. For instance, absentee rates might have

decreased because the climate was mild. This would have to be ruled out in order for the principal’s conclusion to be valid.

5、官方认为的有几个关键名词需要解释，其中analysis这个词的解释很重要，很多同学知道这个词的意思是分析，但什么是分析就说得不是很清楚了。这里给出了清晰的答案：the process of breaking something (e.g., an argument) down into its component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up the whole。说白了，就是把原题中的三段式论证给打拆开，逐一地进行分析。同样的analytical writing的核心也就是拆开原命题，分成1串逻辑链，然后一部分一部分地讨论。

6、核心论证方法：找出隐含假设（并质疑）identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible；寻找它因和寻找反例think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can；加条件后讨论think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims；提出改进方案ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound。同学们以上四点是核心论证方法！！！所有的满分范文中都用到了这四种方法。

其中，在论证时需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims。这里重要的是加上一个常识性条件后，能意识到，有些情况，是支持原命题的。这一点至关重要，我们是讨论，要求同存异，而不是一味的批驳。

7、满分作文的模式：essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the main points of the critique。先复述题目，然后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。

8、高分作文的攻击顺序：You might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the argument's line of reasoning.这里给出了两种攻击顺序，根据我读了一个多月awintro的经验来看，一般官方给出的建议总是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推荐issue观点的时候总是把平衡观点放在最后。所以这里比较好的方案是先质疑一个核心的假设，然后再按照原文逻辑来搞。

9、6分作文标准:

A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.

A typical paper in this category

• clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully

• develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions • effectively supports the main points of the critique

• demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety

• demonstrates facility with the conventions (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written English but may have minor errors

---------------------------------------------------------

第二部分：范文分析。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

第一篇文章

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

原题逻辑顺序为：数据显示了对保护装备的需求==〉展开说明这个数据是怎样显示这样的需求的（即用这个装备有什么效果）==〉结论：为了达到这个效果我们应该重金买这保护设备。 。

Benchmark 6

The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前两句首先肯定了原命题中值得肯定的地方。这是求同存异的表现。注意这里第一句作者同意原命题的同时，在第二句紧接着就给出了展开的证明。而没有光是罗列观点。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再说原命题是存在逻辑漏洞的，即它因。这里并没有展开论证，因为这是全文的中心句，整个文章都在后面给予论证。同时，最后半句给出了论据中的潜在后果。{argument范文}.

。

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). body打头第一段是属于攻击总前提假设的，作者认为这个（即保护性设备和防护性设备的差别）是有必要在讨论一切之前弄清楚的。论证方法为质疑假设，加条件后讨论，提出建议。实际上，这个前提对应的就是开头段的前两句话。深层的含义就是，尽管我在开头对你的某一个部分作了让步似的同意，但是这个同意也是建立在一定的假设基础上的，要是这个假设搞不清楚，哼哼我让不让步还不一定呢！本段就来讨论这个假设基础。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 这两句分别从两个方面进行了论述，为本段第一句话的论证进行服务，每一方面的具体方法是先定义，再比较。论证方法为加上不同的条件后进行讨论，比如前一句话假定只有防护性装备会怎样，后一句话假定只有保护性装备会怎么样。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 这里提出了作者的建议，即如何通过进一步的完善使原命题更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果这个问题（保护防护设备的差别）解决了后面的讨论才能继续。所以说，总的来说这一段是讨论了原文一

argument范文篇二

GRE写作argument范文

GRE写作Argument高分范文

题目：

The following appeared in a memorandum from the general manager of KNOW radio station:

"KNOW should shift its programming from rock-and-roll music to a continuous news format. There are a number of reasons why: the number of older people in our listening area has increased dramatically, while the total number of our listeners has recently declined, music stores in our area report decreased sales of recorded music and continuous news stations in neighboring cities have been very successful. Furthermore, a survey taken just before the recent election shows that locals are interested in becoming better informed about politics."

范文：

This memo recommends that KNOW radio station shift from rock-and-roll (R&R) music programming to all-news programming based on a number of reasons. As the manager indicates, the total number of KNOW listeners are decreasing in number while the number of older people in KNOW's listening area is increasing. The manager also points out that area sales of music recordings are in decline. Furthermore, the manager cites a recent survey that indicates local residents are interested in becoming better informed about politics. The manager also points out

that a radio station in a similar situation shifted their programming and met with great success. While the recommendation seems to be well supported, there are too many unproven assumptions here.

First, the manager assumes that the decline in the number of KNOW listeners is attributable to the station's current format. It is possible that decline is due to KNOW's specific mix of R&R music, or to transmission problems at the station. Without ruling out these and other possible reasons for the decline in total listener number, the manager should not offer a recommendation for change.

Secondly, in his argument, the manager assumes that older people favor all-news programming—this is an unsubstantiated view. Perhaps as KNOW's regular audience ages, it will prefer a mix of R&R and news programming rather than one format or the other. In short, the mere fact that the number of older people in KNOW's listening area is increasing suggests nothing about KNOW's best programming strategy.

Thirdly, a decrease in local music recording sales is scant evidence that KNOW should eschew music in favor of an all-news format. Although overall music sales are declining, perhaps sales of R&R recordings are actually increasing while sales of all other types of music recordings are decreasing. For that matter, perhaps people who buy music recordings are generally not the same people who listen to music on the radio. Either scenario, if true, would seriously undermine the manager's

recommendation.

Fourth, it is not sound reasoning to conclude from one survey suggesting that local residents are becoming better informed about politics that they are becoming less interested in listening to R&R music. Neither is it sensible to conclude that they are interested in news at all. After all, news embraces many topics in addition to politics. Besides that fact, there is no reason why people interested in politics cannot also be interested in listening to R&R music. Moreover, a single survey taken just prior to an election is insufficient evidence that the trend in interest would continue.

Finally, it is unwarranted to infer from the success of all-news stations in nearby areas that KNOW will also succeed by following the same format. Those stations might owe their success to their powerful transmitters, popular newscasters, or other factors. Besides, the very success of these stations suggests that the area's radio listeners might favor those well-established news providers over a fledgling like KNOW would be after the transition.

In sum, the manager's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the argument. So, while a shift may be a good idea, the argument certainly requires substantial work. For example, the manager should provide better evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey, that people within KNOW's listening area are becoming more interested in

news and less interested in R&R music—or any other kind of music. The manager must also demonstrate that an all-news format would be more popular than a mixed format of music and news, and that a significant number of people would prefer KNOW's all-news programming over that of other stations in the listening area.

argument范文篇三

新东方GRE argument范文10篇(一)

智课网GRE备考资料

新东方GRE argument范文10篇（一）

The following is a memorandum from the director of personnel to the president of Get-Away Airlines.

"Since our mechanics are responsible for inspecting and maintaining our aircraft, Get-Away Airlines should pay to send them to the Quality-Care Seminar, a two-week seminar on proper maintenance procedures. I recommend this seminar because it is likely to be a wise investment, given that the automobile racing industry recently reported that the performance of its maintenance crews improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. These

maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do our mechanics, including refueling and repairing engines. The money we spend on sending our staff to the seminar will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline."

［Sample Essay］

The director of personnel for Get - Away airlines has not made a very persuasive argument for sending the company's employees to the Quality - Care Seminar in his or her letter to the president of the company. Maybe the personnel director has not thoroughly investigated this particular seminar, as there are holes in the logic used to try to persuade the president to pay to send the mechanics to this two-week seminar.

First of all, the personnel director has stated that the seminar "is likely to be a wise investment" but then bases that assumption on a report from the automobile racing industry that their maintenance crews' performances had improved after attending the seminar. The letter does not state exactly what the seminar entails or whether it is specific to the proper maintenance procedures of any particular type of machine. It would be helpful had the personnel director explained in more detail the content of the Quality - Care seminar and whether it is aimed at automobiles or whether aircraft are included at all. The mechanics must learn something of value that will help them inspect and maintain the airline's fleet of aircraft. For the seminar to be a wise investment, the net productivity and income gains must outweigh the cost of the seminar. There is no evidence to show that this is the case.

Secondly, because the personnel director refers only to a report by the automobile racing industry, it seems probable that the seminar is specific to only that highly specialized industry. It is likely that there would be no clear correlation between the duties of the maintenance crews of an airline and the maintenance crews of an automobile built for racing. The fundamental purposes behind the two types of maintenance crews are clearly different. An automobile racing

maintenance crew strives to create and maintain the fastest machine possible to enable its driver to cross the finish line in first place. An aircraft maintenance crew is devoted to ensuring that the airplane can fly safely in an efficient manner to transport people and cargo crew from one place to another. Speed is the main focus of the racecar industry while cost and safety are the main focuses of an airline.

Additionally, the personnel director suggests that the automotive racing industry maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do the airline's mechanics, "including refueling and repairing engines". Although in name these functions are similar, they are in actuality performed in very different manners with different purposes in mind. For example, refueling in the racing industry is done as quickly as possible in order to get the racecar driver back on the track immediately. Certainly care is taken to ensure safety but again it is speed that is the number one priority.

Refueling an airplane does not have to be done in the shortest time possible. The safety of passengers and cargo is the top priority. Similarly, the repairing of engines differs in that the faulty repair of a car engine may lead to losing the race, but the faulty repair of an airplane engine may result in an aircraft falling from the sky with disastrous consequences. Chances or shortcuts that might be taken with an automotive engine cannot be performed on an aircraft engine.

Finally, the personnel director refers to the inevitability of improved maintenance thus leading to greater customer satisfaction and therefore greater profits. This is a possible chain of events, certainly not an inevitable progression. In addition to the previously noted flaws in logic, merely spending money to send the staff to the seminar will not guarantee the stated "inevitable" benefits. It is possible that even if the seminar directly addresses aircraft maintenance and repair, the company's mechanics may already know everything that is presented, thus no

improvement in maintenance will be gained. Maybe the mechanics will spend more time at the nightclubs in the area and not learn anything from the knowledge that is presented.

Furthermore, there is no direct correlation between improved maintenance and increased customer satisfaction, let alone an increase in profits. Aircraft maintenance is necessarily a "behind the scenes" activity that customers rarely notice, barring some catastrophic failure. It is doubtful that improved maintenance would lead to any recognizable increase in customer satisfaction. Additionally, customers may already be completely satisfied with Get - Away's services, thus no greater profits are possible from increasing customer satisfaction.{argument范文}.

It is entirely possible that the personnel director's commitment to send the airline company's mechanics would

indeed lead to the benefits that he or she has stated in the letter to the president. If the seminar does directly address maintenance and repair issues that actually would help the mechanics to improve the performance of their work duties, it is possible that the airline would see an increase in their efficiency and productivity. But barring some extrinsic

evidence that is not included in the personnel director's letter, there are not enough facts stated to allow the president of Get - Away Airlines to make an informed decision on whether to send the mechanics to the Quality - Care seminar.

(847 words)

汉译对照

［题目］

下述内容为Get-away航空公司人事主任向总裁呈上的备忘录中的一段文字：

"既然我们的机师负责检查和维修我们的飞机，Get-Away航空公司应该出钱让他们参加"关心质量"培训班，一种为期一周的讲授正确保养程序的培训班。我之所以推荐这一培训班，因为这有可能是一项甚为英明的投资，其依据是赛车行业最近称，其维修保养小组参加该培训班之后，其技术水准显著改观。这些维修小组所从事的许多职责与我们的机师相同，包括补充燃料和修理引擎。我们花钱将我们的员工送去参加该培训班，必将导致维修水准的提高，从而在为本公司带来更多经济效益的同时获得更高的客户满意度。"

［嘉文博译范文］

Get-Away航空公司的人事主管在其致公司总裁的信中，没能就派遣该公司雇员前去参加"关心质量"培训班提出令人信服的论点。或许，该人事主管没能对该培训班作出充分调研，因为在用于试图说服总裁花钱派遣机师前去参加为期两周的培训班的逻辑推理中，漏洞百出。

首先，该人事主管陈述道，此培训班不失为一项"明智的投资"，但随后又将这一假设基于来自赛车行业的一份报告，称其维修队的表现在参加该培训班之后显著提高。信件既没能确切地说明培训班涵盖哪些方面，也没说明它是否特定针对某一具体机械类型的恰当保养程序。该人事主管如果较详细地解释"关心质量"培训班的内容，以及它是否针对汽车，还是也囊括飞机，这样便更加有用。机师们必须学习到有价值的东西，能帮助他们检查和维修航空公司的全部飞机。要想使培训班成为一项明智的投资，净生产效益和收益必须超进培训班的成本。信中无证据证明情况会如此。

其次，由于人事主管仅提及赛车行业的一份报告，则该培训班很有可能仅专门针对这一高度专业化的行业。在航空公司维修人员与赛车行业维修人员的职责之间，可能毫无明显的联系。这两类维修人员背后的根本目的显然不同。赛车维修人员力图去造就并维护一部最大限度快速行驶的机器，以便使其驾驶员第一个冲进终点。

飞机维修人员致力于确保飞机能以一种有效的方式安全飞行，将人与货物从一地运输至另一地。速度是赛车的主要目标，而成本与安全则是航空公司的主要目标。 此外，人事主管表示，赛车业维修人员所从事的许多职能与航空公司的机师相同，"包括加油和修理引擎"。虽然从名称上看，这些职能相似，但实际上它们是以极为不同的方式完成的，目标也全然不同。例如，赛车业中的加油需尽快完成，以便让赛车手立刻重返赛道。当然，人们会小心行事以确保安全，但速度在这里再度成为压倒一切的因素。给飞机加油无须在最短时间内完成。旅客和货物的安全才是重中之重。同样，两者修理引擎也不尽相同，因为汽车引擎修理失误，所导致的是比赛的败北。但飞机引擎修理失误，将会导致飞机自高空中坠毁，造成灾难性后果。在修理汽车引擎时可能采用的碰运气或走捷径的做法，是断不能在飞机引擎上上演的。 最后，人事主管提到维修水平将不可避免得以提高，从而导致更大的客户满意度，并因此增加利润。这只能算是一种有可能的事件之链，但肯定不是一种不可避免的事态演变。除了上述所指出的逻辑缺陷以外，仅仅花钱派遣人员前去参加培训班并不能保证人事主管所陈述的那些"理所当然的"益处。即使培训班有可能是直接针对飞机的保修与维修，但公司的机师可能就早已掌握了培训班所要讲授的知识，因而不可能实现维修水准的提高。机师们也有可能将更多的时间耗费在当地的夜总会里，从所教授的知识中一无所获。

此外，在提高保养水平和提高客户满意??飞机保养无疑是一种"幕后"活动，除了发生某种灾难性的故障，客户一般是很少注意到的。保养水平的提高将导致客户满意度的显著提高，这是令人颇为怀疑的。再则，客户可能早已对Get-Away的服务完全满意，故提高客户满意度并不可能造成更多的利润。

人事主管致力于促成派遣航空公司机师参加培训，这是完全有可能带来在其致总裁的信中所陈述的那些益处。假如培训班所直接针对的确实是那些实际有助于机师们提高其工作责职表现的保养及修理问题，那么，该航空公司有可能发现其效率和生产能力出现一种增长。但是，除了某些外部证据以外，人事主管的信中没能陈述足够的事实。足以让Get-Away航空公司总裁就是否派遣机师参加"关心质量"培训班一事作出明智的决策。

argument范文篇四

新东方GRE argument范文10篇(三)

智课网GRE备考资料

新东方GRE argument范文10篇（三）

The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper

"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the

damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."

Sample Essay

The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.

In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer

traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the{argument范文}.

discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

Finally, the letter writer refers to the "negligence and wastefulness" of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the author's argument.

In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her

argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridge's damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durant's decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

(605 words)

参考译文 [题目]

下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市报》的信函：

"前市长Durant应向全体Atticus 市民道歉。无论是将Atticus 市和Hartley市连结起来的跨河大桥所遭到的毁坏，还是我们在大桥上长期以来所经历的交通问题，实际上都是由Durant 市长在20年之前一手铸成的。无论如何，是他批准了大桥的开工建设。如果他所批准建设的大桥更宽一些，设计得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款项大致相等的话，那么，无论是大桥的受损，还是交通拥堵问题均不会发生。然则，在过去20年期间，跨河大桥现在则远比上游河段上长度远长得多的Derby河大桥更为快速地遭到毁损。尽管过去几年中冬天的日子甚为严酷，但我们绝不能原谅Durant 市长的玩忽职守和浪费。"

[范文正文]

本信函的作者在其论述中得出结论，认为前市长Durant 应向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因为对于过去20年中跨河大桥所遭受的损坏他应引咎自责。作者亦责怪Durant市长造成了大桥上长期以来的交通问题。作者陈述道，由于Durant市长批准了现在这座大桥的开工建设，而没有批准一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥，故他在20年之前实际上就已铸成了上述这些问题。提出这些论点的作者可以对Durant市长有此个人怨仇，但论述中所陈述的各项内容并不能为这样一种责怪提供依据。

首先，作者斩钉截铁地将罪责归咎于Durant市长，仅仅因为他批准了大桥的建造这一行为本身。但作者没能提供证据证明，仅仅只是批准该座大桥的建造这一行为与大桥本身所遭受的毁坏或大桥上的交通问题有任何必然的联系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生仅仅只是准许了建造这座大桥的想法，而并没有认可该大桥的设计或建造该大桥的承包商。纯粹去批准大桥的建造，这一行为就其本身而言并不会导致大桥受毁或造成任何交通问题。

此外，论述者得出结论，认为如果Durant市长批准建造一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥的话，则既不会发生大桥受损，也不会有交通拥堵的问题。对于该论据，论述者也没有提出任何证明依据。一个众所周知的事实是，所有桥梁的状况都会每况愈下，尤其是经历了20年这样长的时间之后，无论它们当时设计得是如何精良。信函作者也没能提供任何能起到支持作用的证据来证明，人们可以用大致同等数量的公共款项建起一座更为持久的、交通问题更少的大桥。有可能的是，一座桥面更宽的大桥所遭受的损坏可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的资金将更大，无论所使用的是公共款项还是私人资金。

再者，论述者提到跨河大桥比上游河段更长的Derby大桥老化的速度来得快。这一毫无根据的论点没能考虑到导致两座大桥老化状况差异的其他有可能的因素，如交通负荷、桥址、以及其他环境方面的变数。例如，Derby大桥受到了更好的保护，受自然因素影响较少，很少有重型卡车类的交通工具通过其上。除了其武断的个人看法以外，信函作者没有拿出任何依据来在两座大桥之间作出直接的比较。

最后，信函作者提及Durant市长的"玩忽职守及浪费"。该作者所援引的有关Durant市长的唯一的所作所为仅是早先时候对大桥建造的批准，而这一点既不能证明任何的玩忽职守，也不能证明任何浪费。该句子本身包含了一个不根据前提的推理--首先讨论过去几年中气候严酷的冬天，紧接着责怪Durant先生的浪费与疏忽。在作者的论述中，这一谴责既无正当理由，也缺乏依据。

概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫无根据的责怪，而没有拿出任何真正的依据来证明其论点。要使其论点更具说服力，该作者应拿出证据来证明，Durant市长所批准的是一份有严重失误的大桥建设设计方案，或一个没有资质的建筑公司，从而导致了大桥的受毁和交通问题。该作者也应该提供有支持作用的细节，以表明大桥受损程度超乎寻常，并且是因为Durant市长决定使用劣质建筑材料或采用了一份蹩脚的设计方案而直接造成的。在没有更为充分的依据这一条件下，该作者的论点无法令人置信，并且也显得没有得到充分的论证。

argument范文篇五

新东方GRE argument范文10篇(八)

智课网GRE备考资料

新东方GRE argument范文10篇（八）

As people grow older,Ġan enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.

In this argument, the arguer states that researchers have found compounds that keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which are known to be involved in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, and that therefore, these

compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several critical flaws in logic.

First of all, the arguer states that as people grow older, PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals that are

involved in learning and memory. It is true that generally, as people get older, they tend to have more problems with learning and memory. However, there is no direct link mentioned between the breaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the loss of learning ability or memory. Additionally, the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down by PEP. What the researchers have found is a compound that prevents neuropeptides from breaking apart. These are two different physical actions: the breaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as opposed to the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it is not stated which of these physical actions is involved with the loss of learning ability and memory. It is not explicitly stated that the breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in learning ability and memory, only that this happens as people grow older. It is also not expressly stated whether the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves causes memory loss or a lessened learning ability.

Without showing a direct link between the effect of keeping the neuropeptides from breaking apart and a reduction in the loss of memory and learning ability, the efficacy of the compounds is called into question.

Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on rats. Rats may have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most certainly not the same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning and{argument范文}.

memory problems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the compounds on rats may also be very different from their effect on human beings. It is absurd in the extreme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even assuming that they would help the students with their studies, without conducting further studies assessing the compounds' overall effects on humans. The argument fails on this particular fact if for no other reason.

Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that "as people grow older", PEP breaks down the

neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocates extending the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young, not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causes students to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it is more likely that it is

extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causes such problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highly unlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory loss and decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have any benefits for students.{argument范文}.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the argument as presented. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct link between the breaking apart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning ability.

Additionally, he or she must show that students' poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is a result of the same

process, and that the researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effect on humans as it seems to have on rats.

(633 words)

参考译文

［题目］

随着人们日渐衰老，一种被称为PEP的酶会不断地分解学习与记忆过程中所涉及到的神经肽化学物。但现在，研究人员已发现了可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物。在测试中，这些化合物几乎在老鼠身上能完全恢复缺失的记忆。这些化合物的运用应该也推广到记忆力衰弱或专注力有困难的学生身上，不然将会造成学业表现上的严重问题。科学终于解决了那些令家长和老师束手无策的问题。

[范文正文]

在本段论述中，论述者指出，研究人员已发现了某些化合物，可以阻止一种被称为PEP的酶的物质将神经肽予以分解，而神经肽则是学习和记忆过程中所需涉及到的物质。论述者还宣称，检测结果表明，这些化合物几乎完全恢复了老鼠身上缺失的记忆。因此这些化合物应该让那些记忆力差和难于集中注意力的学生服用。这段论述缺乏说服力，因为它包含着某些逻辑推理方面甚为严重的缺陷。 首先，论述者称，随着人们渐趋衰老，PEP 会分解学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物。确实，随人们渐趋衰老，他们往往会在学习和记忆方面

遭遇诸多问题。但是，在神经肽化学物的分解以及学习能力与记忆力丧失之间，却没有提到任何直接的联系。除此之外，论述者提及被PEP所分解的几种神经肽化学物。但研究人员所发现的只是一种可阻止神经肽不致于分裂的化合物。这是两种不同性质的物理作用：神经肽化学物的分解有别于神经肽自身的分裂。此外，原论述并未陈述这两种物理作用中的那一种与学习能力和记忆能力的丧失相涉。论述者没有明确陈述化学物的分解导致了学习能力和记忆能力的丧失，而只是陈述这种情形只是随着人们日趋年迈而发生。原论述中也没有确切地陈述神经肽自身的分裂是否会导致记忆缺失或学习能力下降。如果无法在阻止神经肽分裂所能产生的作用与减少记忆能力和学习能力丧失之间证明某种直接的联系，那么，化合物的效用将令人质疑。

第二，也是极为明显地，化合物只是在老鼠身上进行了测试。虽然老鼠与人类具有类似的基因结构，但它们无论如何并不等同于人类。对于学习和记忆问题，老鼠所遇到的原因很可能全然不同于人类所遇到的原因。在没有作进一步的研究来估评化合物对人类所产生的总体效果的情况下，就去提倡将这些化合物供学生服用，甚至假设它们有助于学生提高其学习效果，这实乃荒唐至极。即使不是出于其他原因的话，就这一特定事实本身，该段论述根本就站不住脚。

进一步而言，论述者在其论述的开始陈述道，"随着人们渐趋衰老"，PEP会将学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物进行分解。在论述的结尾之处，论述者倡导将那些可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物推广至那些记忆力和专注力差的学生身上。学生普遍而言都是年轻人，而不是老年人。论述者没有拿出任何证据来证明究竟是什么原因实际导至学生们记忆力和专注力下降。较有可能的是，是那些课外活动，或缺少充足的睡眠，导致了学生身上的这些问题。即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止与衰老相关的记忆缺失问题和学习能力下降问题，它们也极不可能也能为学生带来任何的裨益。

总而言之，论述者没能用其提出的论据来说服我们。若要使其论述在逻辑上成立，论述者必须在神经肽的分裂与记忆能力和学习能力的缺失之间证明某种直接的联系。此外，论述者必须证明学生记忆能力差和注意力难以集中均是同一过程造成的，并且研究人员所发现的化合物对人类所产生的效果会对老鼠似乎所产生的效果同样的好。

argument范文篇六

新东方GRE argument范文10篇(九)

智课网GRE备考资料

新东方GRE argument范文10篇（九）

In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

This argument is based on two separate surveys of the citizens of Leeville, conducted by the University of Leeville. In the first survey, most respondents said that their preferred reading material was literary classics. A follow-up study by the same researchers found that mystery novels were the most frequently checked out books from each of the public libraries in Leeville. The arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study therefore misrepresented their own reading habits. This argument does not follow the facts and is therefore unconvincing due to several flaws in logic.

First of all, it is possible that none of the citizens who responded to the first survey were participants in the second survey. Statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that the first survey contained a greater majority of literary classics readers than are present in the general population of Leeville. The difference in the first study and the study of the books that were actually checked out from the library may purely be that the respondents had different interests in literature, therefore disallowing the arguer's conclusion that the first group misrepresented its preferred reading material.

Secondly, it is possible that the difference in the survey results could be attributed to the lack of availability of literary classics in the Leeville public libraries. Simply put, the library may have thousands of mystery novels available for

checkout but very few literary classics in their collections. Leeville citizens may actually prefer to read literary classics - the public libraries simply may not have them for the citizens to check out and read. Another possibility is that the Leeville public libraries restrict the checkout of literary classics - perhaps treating the books as a type of "reference" material that must be read inside the library and cannot be checked out. Furthermore, it is possible that no matter how many literary classics the Leeville public libraries have, the citizens have read them all in the past, perhaps many times over, and they are therefore not checked out. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

Thirdly, literary classics are the type of book that people tend to buy for personal collections rather than checking them out of a library. It is a distinct possibility that the citizens of Leeville purchase literary classics to read and then keep in home libraries rather than checking them out of the library. Leeville citizens may prefer to read literary classics and therefore buy them for their own personal collections, thus checking other types of reading materials out of the

library rather than buying them to own forever. The arguer's conclusion that the first set of respondents misrepresented their reading habits is critically weakened by this possibility.

Finally, this argument does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. There is no indication given about how many people were surveyed, the demographics involved, or the specific locations

involved. For example, richer people would tend not to visit public libraries but they are possibly more predisposed to reading literary classics. Similarly, people who visit public libraries may be more predisposed to reading mystery novels than literary classics. Without knowing the relationship between those first surveyed and those who visit the public libraries, it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion about the accuracy of the first group's statements.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to find further research that eliminates these other possibilities that preclude the judgment that the first group of respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

(614 words)

参考译文

［题目］

"在一项由Leeville大学就Leeville市民阅读习惯所作的研究中，大多数受访对象称,他们偏爱将文学名著作为其阅读材料。但是，由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查却发现，每个公共图书馆外借得最频繁的图书均为志怪小说类。因此，我们可以得出这样的结论，即第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述出他们的阅读习惯。"

[范文正文]

上述论断基于由Leeville大学对Leeville市民所从事的两项互为独立的调查。在前一项调查中，大多数受访对象称他们较为偏爱的阅读材料是文学名著。由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查则发现，志怪小说是Leeville市每个公共图书馆外借频率最高的一类图书。论述者便据此得出结论认为，这样看来，第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述他们自己的阅读习惯。这段论述没能遵循事实，因而由于逻辑方面某些缺陷而无从令人置信。

首先，有可能是，对第一项调查作出问卷回答的公民，没有一个人参加了第二项调查。从统计角度而言，完全有可能的情形是，第一项调查涵盖了一个比Leeville总人口中所存在的来得更大的文学名著多数读者群。第一项研究与其后对图书馆实际外借的书所作的那项研究，二者间的差异可能纯粹是因为受访对象对文学拥有全然不同的兴趣，因此否定了论述者所谓第一组受访对象没有如实表述其所喜爱的阅读材料的结论。

其次，两项调查结果之间的差异或许可以归诸于这样一个原因，即Leeville市的公共图书馆内缺乏文学名著。说得简单一点，图书馆可能有数千册志怪小说供外借但却没能收藏多少册文学名著。Leeville市民实际上可能甚是偏爱阅读文学名著，但公共图书馆就是没有此类图书外借供市民阅读。另一个可能性是，Leeville公共图书馆限制文学名著的外借--可能只将这类图书当作"参考"资料，只允许在馆内阅读，不得外借。进一步而言，也有可能是，无论Leeville公共图书馆藏有多少册文学名著，市民们在过去已将它们悉数读完，甚至读过许多遍，因此，这些书便不再有人借阅。这些可能性也进一步削弱了第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的论点。

第三，对于文学名著这类书，人们往往购买来作为个人藏书，而不太倾向于从图书馆借阅。一个显著的可能性是，Leeville市民购买文学名著来阅读并随后将它们收藏于家庭图书馆而不再去公共图书馆借阅。Leeville市民可能喜爱阅读文学名著并因此购置它们作为个人藏书，因此只从图书馆借阅其他类型的阅读材料，而不是去购买这些材料来永久地拥有。论述者关于第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的结论，由于这一可能性而遭到致命的削弱。

最后，这段论述没有解释这样一种可能性，即调查样本本身带有缺陷。论述者没有摆出任何资料表明到底有多少市民接受了调查，或所涉及的人口统计学方法是什么，或所涉及的具体地点。例如，较富有的人往往不太会光顾公共图书馆，但他们可能更喜爱阅读文学名著。同样地，光顾公共图书馆的人可能更喜爱阅读志怪小说而不爱读文学名著。如果不知道第一组受访群体与光顾公共图书馆的群体之间的关系，就不可能就第一组群体的人的陈述的精确性得出一个恰当的结论。

总而言之，论述者没有能说服我们，因为他（她）过于匆促地