GRE寫作ARGUMENT邏輯技巧
GRE作文argument為批判性論述文，需要對給出的一段論述文字進(jìn)行分析，找到其邏輯漏洞并加以攻擊。下面小編就和大家分享GRE寫作ARGUMENT區(qū)分主次要邏輯技巧，來欣賞一下吧。
GRE寫作ARGUMENT區(qū)分主次要邏輯技巧
GRE寫作怎樣判斷主次要邏輯漏洞?
如上文所說，其實很多時候一篇argument題目素材里，存在的邏輯漏洞往往不止一處，對于一些寫作駁論文經(jīng)驗豐富的考生來說，有些題目甚至一眼望去就是千瘡百孔的。但這并不代表大家隨便抓住一點就可以寫出很有說服力的文章。學(xué)會區(qū)分邏輯漏洞的主要和次要，集中精力從主要漏洞入手進(jìn)行寫作才能讓文章更有說服力。下面小編通過一個實例為大家分析：
GRE寫作ARGUMENT真題實例分析
The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine.
A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of their firms. Of the advertising firms studied those whose executives reported needing no more than 6 hours of sleep per night had higher profit margins and faster growth. These results suggest that if a business wants to prosper, it should hire only people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night.
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.
作文題目翻譯
最近一項研究根據(jù)每晚平均睡眠時間對300名男性和女性Mentian廣告經(jīng)理需要的睡眠總量與他們公司的成功之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。被研究的廣告公司中，那些報告每晚需要的睡眠不超過6小時的經(jīng)理有較高的利潤率和較快的增長。這些結(jié)果表明，如果一個企業(yè)想要成功，就應(yīng)該雇傭那些每晚只需要不超過6小時睡眠時間的人。
寫一篇回應(yīng)文章，探討上述論據(jù)中明示和/或隱含的假設(shè)，并解釋該論據(jù)如何建立在這些假設(shè)之上;如果這些假設(shè)不合理，會對該論據(jù)產(chǎn)生什么影響";
邏輯鏈整理
如果一個企業(yè)想要成功，就應(yīng)該雇傭那些每晚只需要不超過6小時睡眠時間的人。
寫作思路解讀
這道題目選自2016年9月18日GRE考試機(jī)經(jīng)，可以看出這道題目其實本身存在許多邏輯漏洞。比如STUDY的結(jié)論是否權(quán)威，300人的樣本數(shù)是否足夠，還有受訪者的男女比例，企業(yè)成功能否只靠經(jīng)理，該現(xiàn)象是否只存在特定行業(yè)中等等。邏輯漏洞一大堆，但并不代表著每個都值得大家大寫特寫一番。
一般來說，比較主要的漏洞往往是從題目本身出發(fā)的，比如剛才提到的企業(yè)成功能否只靠經(jīng)理以及廣告行業(yè)現(xiàn)象是否只是特定行業(yè)問題等等。對這些漏洞進(jìn)行攻擊，可以讓你的文章更有說服力。而其他諸如針對調(diào)查結(jié)果合理性權(quán)威性的漏洞，只能說是次要漏洞，大家可以在寫到最后的時候稍微提一提，但如果把這些次要問題當(dāng)成主要問題來展開寫作，就顯得有些小題大做了。
GRE寫作高分范文：審查的公正性
GRE作文題目：
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
審查很少能夠做到公正。
GRE寫作正文：
“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.
Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.
The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.
Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.
GRE寫作高分范文：information
GRE寫作題目：
Much of the information that people assume is factualactually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus，any piece of information referred to as a‘fact’should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.
大多數(shù)人們認(rèn)為是事實的信息結(jié)果實際上都是不準(zhǔn)確的。因此，任何據(jù)稱是事實的信息都應(yīng)該被質(zhì)疑，因為它在將來很可能會被證明為是錯誤的。
GRE寫作范文：
Should we be doubtful to all the information at hands because the rightness of which is uncertain? The speaker claims so，I concede that people often commit various fallacies in the course of cognizing things，however I fundamentally take exception of the arguer's assertion to mistrust every fact we might encounter. And I will substantially discuss my views thereinafter.
To begin with，the speaker seems to implicate that a fact would be proven false in the future under numerous circumstance. Nevertheless I prefer to arguer that facts never change. No matter how did the Medieval Church and Inquisition persecute Bruno，the fact never changes that the earth is far from being the center of the universe as the religious sovereigns had assumed or hoped for，while just a minor particle in it. Equally，no matter how Edison had tried to incite the public fear and distrust to the alternative current electricity，the fact never changes that Teals’ electrical system is vastly superior to his direct current electrical one，and would be accepted and applied in larger range.
However，what do change are the human's objective interpretations to facts. One compelling argument to this point is that，due to the limitation of human’s knowledge and comprehensive capability，they tend to make insufficient or even false understanding to the certain fact. An apt illustration is the changes of cognition to disease. While at the ancient time，our progenitors believed the a man becoming a patient for the reason that he had conduct crimes or offended some ghosts or spirits，the contemporary people have well know that the varies of pathogens are the basic causes to our diseases，and the defects of our immune system and so forth are also the factors as well. Another argument for the change of comprehension to fact is that different people always observe and interpret from different perspectives. Though the Relativity theory is not well compliable with the Quantum mechanism，no one call the greatness of both Einstein and Bohr，because their theories are based on distinct views，the former from the macrocosm and the later from the microcosm.
Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons for that human tend to make fallacies during the cause of comprehending and cognizing facts，these reasons should never be the excuses to doubt every conclusion we might draw from facts. Based on certain rational inference and proper knowledge fundament，the conclusions we make might well be justifiable，if not completely right，to certain degree. What we need to do is to promote the enterprise of pursuing the better answer and try to use the result we have get to application，instead of wasting our time to undue doubt and suspicion. Though the medical scientists have not fully understood the mechanism of how the does the implanted organ interact with the wounded body，they are not refrain from using the implanting skill to save patients，of course the precondition or which is that this technology is much well established than the fundamental theory.
To sum up，while I advocate the speaker's opinion that it is inevitable for human to comprehend facts inaccurately，for the reason of the limitation of the abilities，I essentially disagree with his assertion that facts will continually alter themselves，as well as his recommendation to discredit any piece of fact. In the final analysis，I would arguer once more that facts never change and although the misunderstanding to them is inevitable，we should not defer ourselves from the pursuit to fully comprehending them.
GRE寫作相關(guān)文章：