GRE寫作Argument經典結構分享
為了幫助大家備考gre。瞭解更多關於gre的知識，打有準備的仗，下面小編給大家帶來GRE寫作Argument經典結構分享，希望大家喜歡。
GRE寫作Argument經典結構分享
第一段：開頭段。主要是歸納論點，説明論點有問題，存在邏輯漏洞，準備發起進攻。
第一層：
This argument concludes/recommends/argues that…
第二層：
To support this conclusion the writer cites…/points out that…
第三層：
However, this argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unconvincing/ unpersuasive as it stands.
第二段和第三段甚至第四段：分類別去攻擊各個邏輯錯誤。(以因果關係類錯誤為例)
One problem with the argument is that, the editorial observes a correlation between… and …, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the editorial fails to rule out other possible explanations for…For example,… Any of these factors, or other social, political or economic factors, might lead to…Without ruling out all other such factors it is unfair to conclude that…
第五段：結尾段。
作者的結論似乎是合理的，但是通過論證，不是這樣的。因此作者在做出決定之前，應該還要考慮其他情況。我們通過一篇文章作為實例來介紹Argument的論證步驟和論證方法以及文章結構。
In the final analysis, the letter's author fails to adequately support the recommendation that…To bolster the argument, the arguer must provide detailed demographic/statistical evidence showing that…The author must also provide evidence--perhaps by way of a reliable survey—that…
GRE寫作滿分範文1
Six?months?ago?the?region?of?Forestville?increased?the?speed?limit?for?vehicles?traveling?on?the?region's?highways?by?ten?miles?per?hour.??Since?that?change?took?effect,?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?in?that?region?has?increased?by?15?percent.??But?the?speed?limit?in?Elmsford,?a?region?neighboring?Forestville,?remained?unchanged,?and?automobile?accidents?declined?slightly?during?the?same?six-month?period.??Therefore,?if?the?citizens?of?Forestville?want?to?reduce?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?on?the?region's?highways,?they?should?campaign?to?reduce?Forestville's?speed?limit?to?what?it?was?before?the?increase.??
At?first?look,?this?seems?to?be?a?very?well?presented?arguement.??A?logical?path?is?followed?throughout?the?paragraph?and?the?conclusion?is?expected.??However,?upon?a?second?consideration,?it?is?apparent?that?all?possibilities?were?not?considered?when?the?author?presented?his?conclusion?(or?at?least?that?s/he?did?not?present?all?of?the?possibilities).?There?are?numerous?potential?explanations?for?why?the?number?of?accidents?in?Elmsford?decreased?while?the?number?in?Forestville?increased.??Although?it?seems?logical?to?assume?that?the?difference?in?the?percentage?of?accidents?was?due?to?the?difference?in?whether?or?not?the?speed?limit?had?been?increased?during?the?specified?month,?this?does?not?necessarily?mean?that?the?speed?limit?should?be?reduced?back?to?what?it?originally?was?in?Forestville.??The?author?does?not?state?two?specific?pieces?of?information?that?are?important?before?a?conclusion?such?as?the?one?the?author?made?is?sound.??The?first?is?that?it?is?not?expressed?whether?the?speed?limits?in?the?two?neighboring?regions?had?had?the?same?speed?limit?before?Forestville's?speed?limit?had?been?increased.??If?they?had?originally?been?the?same,?then?it?is?reasonable?to?conclude?that?Forestville's?speed?limit?should?be?reduced?back?to?what?it?was?before?the?increase.??However,?if?the?two?region's?speed?limits?were?initially?different,?then?such?a?conclusion?can?not?be?made.??The?second?piece?of?information?that?is?necessary?for?the?present?argument?is?the?relative?number?of?accidents?in?each?of?the?areas?prior?to?the?increase?in?speed?limit.??For?the?author?to?make?the?presented?conclusion,?the?number?of?accidents?should?have?been?approximately?equal?prior?to?the?increase?in?the?speed?limit?in?Forestville.??If?the?two?missing?pieces?of?information?had?been?presented?and?were?in?the?author's?favor,?then?the?conclusion?that?the?author?made?would?have?been?much?more?sound?than?it?currently?is.??In?conclusion,?the?argument?is?not?entirely?well?reasoned,?but?given?the?information?that?was?expressed?in?the?paragraph,?it?was?presented?well,?and?in?a?logical?order.?Comments:?
This?competent?critique?claims?that?there?are?"numerous?potential?explanations?for?why?the?number?of?accidents?in?Elmsford?decreased?while?the?number?in?Forestville?increased."??However,?the?author discusses?only?two?points:??
--?whether?the?speed?limits?in?the?two?regions?were?originally?the?same;????and?
--?the?number?of?accidents?in?each?region?prior?to?Forestville's????raising?the?speed?limit.??
Although?the?response?appears?at?first?to?be?well?developed,?there?is?much?less?analysis?here?than?the?length?would?suggest.??The?first?third?and?last?third?of?the?essay?are?relatively?insubstantial,?consisting?mainly?of?general?summary?statements?(e.g.,?"A?logical?path????conclusion?is?expected"?and?"If?the?two????more?sound?than?it?currently?is").??The?real?heart?of?the?critique?consists?of?minimal?development?of?the?two?points?mentioned?above.??Therefore,?although?two?important?features?of?the?argument?are?analyzed?and?the?writer?handles?language?and?syntax?adequately,?the?lack?of?substantial?development?keeps?this?critique?from?earning?a?score?higher?than?4.
GRE寫作滿分範文2
Six?months?ago?the?region?of?Forestville?increased?the?speed?limit?for?vehicles?traveling?on?the?region's?highways?by?ten?miles?per?hour.??Since?that?change?took?effect,?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?in?that?region?has?increased?by?15?percent.??But?the?speed?limit?in?Elmsford,?a?region?neighboring?Forestville,?remained?unchanged,?and?automobile?accidents?declined?slightly?during?the?same?six-month?period.??Therefore,?if?the?citizens?of?Forestville?want?to?reduce?the?number?of?automobile?accidents?on?the?region's?highways,?they?should?campaign?to?reduce?Forestville's?speed?limit?to?what?it?was?before?the?increase.??
This?argument?does?not?have?any?concrete?information.??It?seems?by?Forestville,?increasing?their?speed?limit?more?accidents?occured.??We?all?know?that?accidents?occur?reguardless?of?what?the?speed?limit?of?the?highway?we?travel.??Fortunately,?Elmsford's?accidents?decreased?during?the?six-months?in?discussion.??This?could?be?because?of?good?weather,?careful?drivers,?or?any?number?of?situations.??On?the?other?hand,?Forrestville?had?an?increase?in?accidents.??The?only?determining?factor?given?was?the?speed?limit?increasing.?This?in?fact?probably?did?play?a?big?role?in?why?there?was?a?15%?percent?increase?in?the?accidents,?but?may?not?be?the?only?factor.???In?order?to?make?an?accurate?judgement?on?why?there?was?an?increase?in?automobile?accidents?the?situation??needs?to?be?researched.?Solid?facts?need?to?be?stated.???Clearly,?to?reduce?the?speed?limit?back?to?normal?in?Forrestville?would?not?eliminate?the?problem.?Comments:?
This?limited?critique?is?plainly?flawed.??The?author?begins?with?a?criticism?about?the?lack?of?"concrete?information"?but?then?fails?to?provide?any?concrete?analysis?in?the?response.??The?writer?cites?the?drop?in?Elmsford's?accidents?but?does?not?develop?any?of?the?reasons?mentioned?to?account?for?the?drop:?"good?weather,?careful?drivers,?or?any?number?of?situations."??
The?writer?then?goes?on?to?discuss?Forestville?and?suggests?that?the?speed?limit?"may?not?be?the?only?factor,"?but?this?point?is?not?developed?either.??The?author?issues?a?generic?call?for?more?research?and?facts?and?offers?an?unsupported?conclusion?of?his?or?her?own:?"Clearly,?to?reduce?the?speed?limit?
would?not?eliminate?the?problem."??Although?the?author?appears?to?know?that?there?is?something?wrong?with?the?argument,?he?or?she?does?not?seem?to?know?how?to?critique?the?argument?in?greater?detail.??
The?response?demonstrates?adequate?control?of?the?elements?of?writing,?but?the?analysis?is?so?underdeveloped?that?it?cannot?earn?a?score?higher?than?3.?
