解读GRE写作中唯一致命问题

解读GRE写作中唯一致命问题,我们一起来看看吧,下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

解读GRE写作中唯一致命问题

在GRE写作中，对Argument文章结构分析的正确性是Argument成功的基础。如果Argument的文章分析发生错误，将直接影响后续文章中攻击点的正确性，这将导致整篇文章将有颠覆之险。因此，同学们在学习Argument写作这一部分的时候，必须要固定对文章结构的分析方法，来确保自己对文章逻辑结构把控的正确性。

从最笼统的角度来说，任何一个Argument的题目，都是由“客观事实”来推导“主观观点”的过程。其中，由于并非所有客观事实都用于支持结论的产生，因此又需要将“客观事实”分成“背景”和“证据”两个部分;同时，部分题目会出现“主观观点”并非一个的情况，因此就要区分出哪一个主观观点是文章的“最终结论”，而剩下的就是“中间结论”。

整个Argument题库中的每道题，其每一句话基本就是这四个基本元素(背景、证据、中间结论、最终结论)中的一种。而基本的推导方式是，证据推出中间结论，再由中间结论推出最终结论。在题目中可能会出现多个证据，而中间结论则有可能不出现。

一般情况下，对以上四个基本元素的区分，需要划分成以下三个基本步骤来进行：

第一步：区分主观观点与客观事实

区分主观观点和客观事实的目的，就是为了在分析文章的逻辑结构中，先聚焦到全文的结论，这是一篇Argument分析的重中之重。结论没找到，后面所有的事情全都免谈。而一旦找对了全文的结论，那么整篇Argument的逻辑就大体清楚了。在Argument考试中，结论的寻找可以基于以下两个依据：

1) 结论是作者的主观观点，而证据是客观事实信息。

这一定义来自于ETS的官方陈述：“The task consists of a brief passage in which the author makes a case for some course of action or interpretation of events by presenting claims backed by reasons and evidence.”(见3.1)可见，文章的结论必然是作者想要论证的目标，而这个目标必然是作者自己发表的。自然，结论是作者的主观观点。

2) 结论是整篇文章逻辑推导的终点。

同样，这一定义也来自于ETS的官方解释：“conclusion — the end point reached by a line of reasoning, valid if the reasoning is sound; the resulting assertion”。所以，结论一定是文章推导的终点。

在实战中，分析Argument语篇逻辑时，如果先对主观观点和客观事实进行区分，将会对文章的整体推导方向起到有效的指导作用。

例1

The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal.

"A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring."

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

上题的结论对于不少同学来说有点难找。其实，基于前面所讲的两个原则找结论并不困难：全文中唯一一句主观观点是：“A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation.”。1)由“provides clues”能够看出这就是作者的主观观点;2)整篇文章之后引用的全是实验结果，那么由这些实验结果推导出第一句话，逻辑就很自然。因此第一句话是整篇文章推导的终点。

GRE Argument写作范文一

题目：

"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town---Adams Realty and Fitch Realty---Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."

范文：

The author argues that Adams Realty is superior to Fitch Realty. To support this claim the author cites statistics about the number and working hours of agents, and the number and sales prices of homes sold by the two farms. Further, the author cites anecdotal evidence involving personal experience with Fitch and Adams. A careful analysis reveals that this evidence it lends little credible support for argument.

The Claim is partially based on the fact that Adams has more agents than Fitch and that many of Fitch's agents work only part-time. There is no correlation between the number of employees, their working hours and the quality of their work. Without such a link, we could consider the possibility that a smaller firm could be more effective than a larger one and, likewise, that a part-time agent could be more effective than a full-time agent. Besides, the author does not provide any information about the specific number of Adams agents who work part-time.

The claim is also supported by the fact that Adams sold more properties than Fitch last year. One year of sales records is an insufficient sample. It is possible that in most other years Adams could have sold fewer properties than Fitch. Moreover, the disparity in sales volume could be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms. For example, perhaps Adams serves a denser geographic area or in an area where turnover in home-ownership is higher for reasons unrelated to Adams' effectiveness. It is even possible that the only reason sales volume is higher at Adams is because the company employs more agents but, perhaps, each Adams agent sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence.

Support for the claim is also drawn from the average sales price of homes. This evidence only illustrates that the homes that Adams sells are more valuable on average than the ones that Fitch sells, not that Adams is more effective in selling homes than Fitch. Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high-priced or low-priced properties skewed these averages, rendering any conclusions about the comparative quality of the two firms based on these averages irrelevant.

The author of the argument indicates that Fitch Realty took a considerably longer time to sell one of the author's homes than it took Adams Realty to sell another one of her homes ten years earlier. However, this disparity can be explained by other plausible factor, for example, changing economic conditions during that ten-year period or a difference in the desirability of the two properties. Without establishing that all other factors affecting the speed of a sale were essentially the same for the two homes, the author should not expect an audience to make a decision on this limited anecdotal evidence.

GRE作文范文 Argument

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily Newspaper.

嘉文博译Sample Essay

"Throughout the country last year, as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth-league softball and soccer, over 80,000 of these young players suffered injuries. When interviewed for a recent study, youth-league softball players in several major cities also reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games. Furthermore, education experts say that long practice sessions for these sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. Since the disadvantages apparently outweigh any advantages, we in Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine."

In this argument, the writer claims that more and more children below the age of nine were participating in youth league softball and soccer last year and that more than eighty thousand of those players suffered injuries. The writer also claims that youth league softball players in several major cities reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games when interviewed for a study. Additionally, the writer cites educational experts as saying that long practice sessions for such sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. The writer then comes to the conclusion that the disadvantages outweigh any advantages; therefore the city of Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under the age of nine. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it should therefore be rejected.

The first problem with this argument is that it does not define what types of injuries the eighty thousand youngsters suffered. Although any injury, no matter how slight, is undesirable, the argument is weakened by not discussing the relative severity of these injuries. This is necessary information when weighing the advantages or disadvantages of youth league sports for children under nine.

Secondly, the writer mentions that youth league softball players in several major cities reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games. The problems with this information are obvious: the study was only for one sport, not all types of athletics; it was only conducted in the major cities, which may or may not be representative of what young athletes throughout the rest of the country would report; and the number of children reporting the psychological pressure as compared to those who did not report it is never mentioned. It is possible that only a few children reported such pressure. Moreover, the term “psychological pressure” is not defined and its meaning is unclear. A study that reports that an unknown number of children feel psychological pressure without defining what that term means, as well as covering only one type of sporting activity and only in the major cities is very weak evidence for discontinuing all athletic activities for children under nine years of age.

Furthermore, the writer mentions that long practice sessions take away time that could be used for academic activities. There is absolutely no evidence presented that Parkville youth league sports have long practice sessions, or that they have any practice sessions at all for that matter. In addition, too much time for academic activities is not healthy for children; they need time to exercise their bodies as well as their minds. Without evidence that long practice sessions are hurting the children’s studies, the argument is further weakened.

Finally, the writer jumps to the conclusion that the disadvantages apparently outweigh the advantages and that Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine. In this argument, the writer only mentions the disadvantages and none of the advantages. No evidence is presented that indicates that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages – some weak and ambiguous information is merely thrown into the argument. Furthermore, the writer ignores other changes that could be made short of discontinuing the program. Solutions such as shortening practice sessions, enforcing mandatory safety equipment rules and emphasizing sportsmanship rather than winning or losing are all ignored by the writer, which greatly weakens the argument.

In summary, the writer has done nothing more than state an opinion with some anecdotal information included that proves nothing. Without providing direct evidence that the children under the age of nine in Parkville are being hurt more than helped by organized athletic competition, the writer’s argument is unconvincing and should be rejected.

(613 words)

参考译文

下述文字摘至一封致《 Parkville日报》某编辑的信函:

“去年在我们整个国家，由于越来越多的9岁以下的孩子参加了青少年联赛的垒球和足球运动，这些年轻球员中有不止80，000多人受伤。在接受某项近期的研究的访谈时，若干大城市中青少年联赛的垒球运动员称，他们承受着来自教练和家长的赢球压力。此外，教育专家称，这些体育运动员所需的漫长训练期耗费了原本可用于学习活动的时间。既然弊明显大于利，我们在Parkille 市就应该停止9岁以下的儿童进行有组织的体育竞赛。”

在上述论述中，信函作者称，越来越多的9岁以下的儿童去年参加了青少年联赛的垒球和足球运动，而在这些运动员中，有80，000多名运动员受过伤。信函作者还宣称，若干个大城市中的青少年联赛垒球运动员在接受某项研究的访谈中说，他们承受着来自教练和家长们的赢球压力。此外，信函作者援引了教育专家的话说，这些体育项目所需的漫长训练期浪费了原本可用于学习活动的时间。这位作者接下来得出结论认为，弊显然大于利，因此Parkville市应该停止9岁以下的儿童进行任何有组织的体育竞赛。上述论述完全基于漏洞百出的逻辑推理，故应予摈弃。

上述论述的第一个问题是，它没有清楚地界定80，000多个小孩子所受的伤属于哪些类型。虽然任何伤痛，无论多么的轻微，均是不可取的，但上述论述由于没能讨论这些伤痛的相对严重程度而受到削弱。有关伤痛类型的信息应是必要的，因为它有助于我们衡量9岁以下孩童从事青少年联赛体育活动的利与弊。

第二，信函作者提到，若干个大城市的青少年联赛的垒球运动员称，他们承受着来自教练和家长们的赢球压力。这一信息所存在的问题是显而易见的：该项研究仅是针对一个体育项目的，而非针对所有类型的体育比赛;它仅仅是在大城市进行的，它或许能够也或许不能够典型地代表全国其他地区青少年运动员的感受;与那些没有说承受着心理压力的孩童相比，承认承受着心理压力的儿童的数量绝未被提到。情况有可能是，仅有很少一些儿童声称承受着这种压力。另外，“心理压力”这一术语未被定义，其含义模糊不清。一份调查研究，如果它仅报告说一些数量不明的孩子感到承受着心理压力，不对相关术语进行定义，仅涵盖一种类型的体育活动，且仅在某几座大城市进行，它只能充当极为微弱的证据，不足以来停止9岁以下儿童所有类别的体育活动。再者，信函作者提到，漫长的训练期会占用原本可用以学习活动的珍贵时间。信函作者绝对没有列举任何证据来证明，Parkville市青少年联赛的体育活动需要漫长的训练期，以及因为那一原因而有任何训练期。此外，太多的时间用在学习上对孩子也是不利于健康的;他们需要有时间来活动他们的身体，而不仅仅是活动他们的大脑。没有拿出证据来证明漫长的训练期正危及孩子们的学业，故该项论述受到进一步的削弱。

最后，信函作者轻率地得出结论，称弊显然大于利，并且Parkville市应该终止9岁以下的儿童进行任何有组织的体育比赛。在此论述中，信函作者仅提及了弊而未提及利。根本没有任何证据可显示弊大于利。我们所看到的仅仅是被塞入到本项论述中的某些缺乏力度和模棱两可的信息。此外，信函作者忽略了除终止体育项目之外所能采取的其他改善措施。像缩短训练周期，执行强制性的安全设备规定，以及强调体育精神而不是单纯的比赛输赢。所有这些解决问题的方法均被信函作者视而不见，由此而严重地削弱了其论据。

归纳而言，信函作者所做的，只是利用某些什么都证明不了的趣事轶闻性质的信息来表达某种个人观点。由于没有提供直接的证据来证明Parkville 市9岁以下的孩童从事有组织的体育竞赛所蒙受的弊是否会大于所得到的利，故信函作者的论述不能令人信服，应予摈弃。

解读GRE写作中唯一致命问题相关文章：