备考GRE考试介绍里的内容你弄懂了吗

备考GRE 考试介绍里的内容你弄懂了吗,我们一起来看看吧,下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

备考GRE 考试介绍里的内容你弄懂了吗

众所周知，官方陈述是所有备考GRE考生必须要掌握并吃透的内容。相比其他部分惜字如金的介绍，ETS在对GRE argument考试的介绍可谓不惜笔墨。自然，我们就必须要对官方所给出的详细介绍进行一个详尽的分析，并从中挖出“金子”，来指导我们的备考GRE

ETS全面讲述了argument考试的核心内容。现对之梳理如下：

1)考试目标：分析一篇给定议论文的逻辑严谨性(logical soundness);

2)评分标准：你的分析能力将直接决定你考分的高低(Consequently, the analytical skills displayed in your evaluation carry great weight in determining your score)。

3)解决方案：从逻辑推导(the line of reasoning)和证据使用(the use of evidence)这两个方面入手研究。

4) 具体操作方法：认真阅读文章，首先找到四个基本元素：证据、结论、假定、隐含信息。其次理清由这四个基本元素所连成的整篇文章的逻辑脉络(the structure of the argument)。

5)哪些不能做：1)客观事实不可以攻击。题目要求分析的是文章的逻辑，而非文章给出的客观事实本身是否正确，否则这个考试就没有意义了。2)不要出现主观判断。这个考试是一个纯客观的写作(根据别人的论证逻辑写一篇文章研究其逻辑严谨性)，因此从读题到分析到最后的写作，没有任何一个地方需要我们发表主观观点。

6)语言能力：ETS所给出的语言要求很明确：表意清晰(clarity)。简而言之，就是你想表达的实际意思和你最后表述出来的内容之间没有差距。

从某种程度上讲，ETS的这段话已经毫无保留地把argument考试该做什么、不该做什么、到底怎么做已经说得极其透彻了。首先，任何一个逻辑推导，一定是以证据为起点、结论为终点。那么很自然地，弄清楚证据和结论在哪里就是必然要做的事情。

至于假定和隐含信息，我们就要联系ETS之前说的内容了：我们在研究逻辑严谨性时，ETS告诉我们有两个途径：研究其逻辑推导(line of reasoning)和证据使用(use of evidence)。如果大家能够把这个信息和这里的要求联系起来，不难发现：假定其实就是出现在逻辑推导的地方，而隐含信息恰好就是出现在证据使用的地方。也就是说，这两个要素的寻找和研究，本质上就是和逻辑严谨性研究挂钩的。

由此可以得出：找到argument中的证据和结论，是我们分析argument的起点;而找到argument中的假定和隐含信息，是我们分析argument的核心内容。

研究完这些之后，ETS告诉我们还要研究argument的逻辑结构(you should consider the structure of the argument)，这是一个必然的结果。找到四个基本元素之后，必然是对文章整体的推导构架进行分析，即：思考作者是如何一步一步推出文章的最终结论的。只有弄清楚了推导步骤，才能彻底弄清楚作者的逻辑思路、为研究严谨性打下基础。

综合前面对ETS官方陈述的解读，我们可以归纳出如下一条思路：

Argument考试的任务是：从逻辑推导和证据使用两方面入手研究它的逻辑严谨性。对此，我们必须首先分清证据和结论，其次找到文章的逻辑构架，然后再开始着手研究每条逻辑背后的严谨性。

在解析完ETS对argument考试更为详尽的官方陈述后，让我们来通过一道题，来感受一下ETS给我们的做题方法到底应该如何在考题中应用起来。

(9) Nature's Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other health-related products, is opening its next franchise in the town of Plainsville. The store should prove to be very successful: Nature's Way franchises tend to be most profitable in areas where residents lead healthy lives, and clearly Plainsville is such an area. Plainsville merchants report that sales of running shoes and exercise clothing are at all-time highs. The local health club has more members than ever, and the weight training and aerobics classes are always full. Finally, Plainsville's schoolchildren represent a new generation of potential customers: these schoolchildren are required to participate in a fitness-for-life program, which emphasizes the benefits of regular exercise at an early age.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

根据前面ETS官方陈述的解读，我们先做第一步：区分证据结论。

很明显，本题的最终结论是：“The store should prove to be very successful.”。

搞明白结论的位置之后，接下来我们一句一句分析：

第一句话：“Nature's Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other health-related products, is opening its next franchise in the town of Plainsville.”很明显，是对全文内容的一个背景介绍。

第二句话，冒号前面的前半句作为最终结论，自然后半句是用来支持最终结论的。作者指出“clearly Plainsville is such an area”意思就是说，作者之所以认为Nature's Way会在Plainsville成功，是因为这个地方的人生活很健康。由此可以得出如下推导：

弄清楚这些，那么很明显，紧接着的两句话：“Plainsville merchants report that sales of running shoes and exercise clothing are at all-time highs.”和“The local health club has more members than ever, and the weight training and aerobics classes are always full.”就是用来证明这个地方的人生活很健康。

最后一句话：“Finally…”，同样碰到了冒号前后的推导关系。很明显，作者认为，是因为这拨孩子参加了健身项目，所以才会认为这拨孩子是潜在客户。

画出逻辑图之后，一个必然需要思考的问题就是：“Plainsville孩子是潜在客户”到底应该推导出啥?从逻辑图上看，它既能够向“Plainsville的人生活健康”推导、又能向“Nature's Way会成功”推导。哪个对呢?

这就需要基于语义来判断怎么推导更合理了。事实上，推导的起点是“Plainsville孩子是潜在客户”，那么既然是“潜在客户”，预示着它只能推向“Nature's Way会成功”(“客户”这个概念和“公司成功”发生逻辑关系更为合理，而非“健康生活”)。于是，最后一条推导箭头就此补全。

分析完题目的逻辑构架，接下来的任务就是研究作者逻辑推导中的逻辑严谨性：

1)“鞋子运动衣卖的多”得出“Plainsville的人生活健康”。

猜测作者的思路，其实这个推导背后的想法很简单：为什么会去买运动衣运动鞋呢?因为要运动。既然运动了，那就说明这个地方的人生活健康了。

既如此，那我们研究严谨性的时候，就可以去思考：1)到底谁来买运动衣运动鞋?是不是一定是当地人呢?2)买了是不是一定去运动呢?于是，我们可以对应地想到：1)可能是游客来买而不是当地人;2)人们买鞋子不一定是为了锻炼，可能为了其他的目的——收藏、攀比、追星、倒买倒卖，都是合理的解释。自然而然的，论述该逻辑不严谨的反例就想出来了。

会了一个，那接下来每一个箭头所指(逻辑推导的点)就应该都可以进行分析。比如： “Plainsville的人生活健康”得出“Nature’s Way会成功”/ “Plainsville的孩子被要求参加健身项目”得出“Plainsville的孩子是潜在客户”等等，都可以分析。

前面实际上就是逻辑推导(line of reasoning)的分析。那证据使用(use of evidence)有没有分析要点呢?当然有。比如：

2)“Plainsville的商家报告说运动鞋和运动衣卖到历史高点。”

很明显，作者引用此为证据，其言下之意必然是想说运动鞋运动衣卖得好。但这句话的表述和作者的真正意图其实并不完全相符：1)商家所做的报告是不是一定代表实际情况呢?显然不一定。2)所谓的“历史高点”代不代表真的卖得好呢?显然不一定。

按照这个思路，剩下的两个证据也一样可以进行分析： “当地健身馆会员比以往多。”/“减重有氧课程人多一直满员。”。

至此，我们已经可以看到。一道argument的题目，如果你能够仔细分析，你一定能够找到足够多的逻辑分析点。需要在这里解释的是，我们真正在考场上写作文，其实根本不需要找到那么多的分析点。一般标准化写作考试的中间段以3-4段居多。如果一个段落对应一个分析点的话，那么一般需要3-4个分析点就足够了。那也就是说，从某种意义上讲，argument考试给了我们一个可供选择的空间。即：不需要考生对整篇文章的所有逻辑脉络都要弄得非常清楚。事实上只需要选择自己弄明白的逻辑脉络进行写作，其实就可以了。

GRE写作argument全部官方范文分析

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。

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个核心的前提。转载自:考试大 - [Examda.Com]

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not.从本段起，连着的三个自然段就是按照原文逻辑链的顺序进行攻击和质疑。实际上，这三段对应的就是开头段的however之后的话。本段先质疑了人的本质的差异。论证方法是加条件后讨论。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.以上三句话展开证明第一个分支观点，论证方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段论。加入常识性条件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保护装置==〉配戴装置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。 Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上两句展开证明第二个分支观点，论证方法同样为大名鼎鼎的三段论，加上常识性条件。即街道公园本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人会选择安全的地方==〉来这里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。这里最后一点是我给补充上的，原文没有论证完全，但是基本的框架还是有的。

The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻击逻辑链的第二步，受伤的程度没有说清。这里的论证方法核心是质疑隐含假设，加条件后讨论。 The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隐含假设。This is certainly not the case.指出它错了。 Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人们晚上去滑的人多这个条件后讨论，最终削弱原命题。

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻击逻辑联的第三步，质量好的不一定有用。核心论证方法为列举它因和提出建议。 For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.简单的t-shirt也能很有用。 Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.

建议我们对器材考虑得更加全面些。

The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.强调原文的初衷还是很好的，就好像两个人在那里辩论，范文把原文给说急了，范文怕原文不高兴了，就再哄哄他：别看我骂了这么多，你的初衷还是好的嘛!值得肯定。 Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最终还是委婉的表达了自己的建议。After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后补充论证自己的建议：论证方法为反证法。同时范文在最后吓唬一吓原文，告诉他不这样做的可怕的后果。

Reader Comment on 6

This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.

The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt's fallacious reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:

.hat preventive and protective gear are not the same

.hat skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious

.hat the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries

.hat gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.

In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the "6" range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored "6."

小总结：

(1)分析原题目中可取之处;指出原文中不足之处;推出论据中的潜在后果。(这里的第一点展开证明，这样虽然没有直接复述题目，但是这三点说完后整个框架就很清楚了

(2)正文中第一段质疑我认为的核心假设错误(从原题目中的可取之处中寻找，要把它唯一一点正确的东西也给质疑了)，后三段按原文逻辑顺序攻击三点，如本文中人的本质==〉人受的伤的差别==〉为防受伤，买质量好的就有用?可以看出，这三点是与原文中三段论式论证环环相扣的。这就是前面第一部分讲解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具体应用。

(3)逻辑方面的论证方法为：寻找并质疑隐含假设，列举它因，加条件(常识性条件，或者限定性条件)后讨论，提出建议。

(4)在语言方面的论证手法有：分情况讨论，举反例推缪。

(5)最后的时候还是要首先肯定原文的可取之处如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善会有什么后果。(范文最后一段基本属于扯淡)

GRE写作：GRE argument范文赏析

The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine

"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."

[Sample Essay]

In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.

Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.

Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.

In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.

(599 words)

汉译对照

[题目]

下述文字摘自一封致某环保杂志编辑的信函：

"全球两栖动物数量的减少明显标志着全球性水与大气的污染。对加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园内两栖动物所作的两项研究可证实我的这一结论。1915年公园内有七个物种的两栖动物，每一物种都拥有丰富的种群数量。然而，1992年，在公园内所能观察到的两栖动物物种仅为四类，且每一物种的种群数量已骤然下降。约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少被归咎于始于1920年的将鲑鱼引入公园水域的做法(众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)。但鲑鱼的引入不可能成为约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少的真正原因，因为它无法来解释全球范围内的动物数量减少。"

[嘉文博译范文]

在本项论述中，信函作者的结论是，全球性水与大气污染已致使世界范围内两栖动物的数量减少。为了支持其论点，作者援引了两份时隔75年之久的研究结果，这两份结果据称可证明加利福尼亚州某一公园――即约塞米蒂国家公园――内两栖动物的数量锐减。此外，该作者撇开了动物数量减少的一个已知原因，陈述道，将鲑鱼引入公园(据称，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)这一做法不足以解释世界范围内两栖动物数量上的减少。这一论点有悖于简单的逻辑，犯有一系列关键性的逻辑谬误。

首先，该论点所依据的仅仅是世界上某一特定地点――即加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园――内的两份研究。围绕着两栖动物数量减少这一问题，如果仅以世界上一个特定的地点为样品，再多数量的研究也无法得出一种精确的、适用于全世界的理论。两栖动物的具体种类、地理状况以及其他因地点而特异的变数均不允许我们作出如此一概而论的总括。一个非常具体的地点不能用作一个代表所有其他地点的模型，即使在一个特定的国家内也不行，更不用说在整个世界范围内了。信函作者没有提供任何证据将约塞米蒂公园的研究与全球环境中任何其他一处地方的任何所宣称的效果联系起来。 其次，所提及的那两项互为独立的研究时隔75年之久。没有证据可证明这两项研究是在相同的时间跨度内以相似的方式进行的，或是在约塞米蒂公园完全相同的地点进行的，或所使用的研究方法绝然相同。例如，第一项研究可能持续了整整一年之久，且是由两栖动物生物学领域的二十五位专家共同进行的。结果是发现了七大种类数目众多的两栖动物。相反，第二项研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的学校的一个科学课题，仅为期一个星期。信函作者没有提供将此两项研究进行比较的基础，从而使两项研究在其广度、范围以及专业水准方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，两栖动物种群数量的减少，已被人归咎于1920年将鲑鱼引入公园水域这一做法，但紧接着又以该论据无法解释世界范围内动物数量减少这一似是而非的依据将该论据予以否认。信函作者论述中的这一部分漫不经心地将一个极为相关的事实弃置不顾，即众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵。这种"prove a negative "的尝试往往是这样一类人所惯用的最后伎俩，他们竭力寻找某种徒劳的尝试，力图去证明他们所宣称的事物的真理。从根本上讲，"prove a negative"是不可能的。这样一种做法是试图将论证的负担重新转嫁给不相信该论据的人。全球的环境情形与约塞米蒂公园的情形并不绝然对应。鲑鱼极有可能造成了两栖动物数量减少这一事实在缺乏进一步证据的情况下是断不能轻易予以否认的。

概括而言，信函作者没能在全球空气和水污染与世界范围内两栖生命数量减少之间建立起任何因果关系。该作者所拿出的证据充其量也是极为苍白无力的，狭隘地将焦点集中在世界的一片极小的区域上，作为证据而援引的两项研究几乎不能说明任何问题。欲使其论点更具力度，信函作者尚需摆出直接的证据，将水和空气污染不仅仅与约塞米蒂公园的两栖动物数量减少联系起来，而且也与世界其他地方的动物数量减少联系起来。

备考GRE 考试介绍里的内容你弄懂了吗相关文章：