悉尼大学商学国贸双硕士毕业,现居澳洲,在澳学习生活15+年,从事教育咨询工作超过10年,澳洲政府注册教育顾问,上千成功升学转学签证案例,定期受邀亲自走访澳洲各类学校
您所在的位置: 首页> 新闻列表> 名师点评:考生原创argument写作.
以下是小编搜索整理的有关新gre考试argument写作范文,要想将argument写作论证透彻,能够充分融合批判性思维和分析写作能力将文章思维表达清楚,大家可能感觉会很吃力,以下是名师点评一位考生的argument写作实例:
Argument的题目是:
The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institute, to the college&aposs governing committee."We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But 80 percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the students government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
该考生Argument的全文如下(考生原创回忆):
The recommendation made by the president and administrative staff of a private institution to the college&aposs governing committee claimed that the century-old tradition of all-female education are supposed to maintain instead of admitting men into its program. The claim seems to be well-reasoned and trustworthy at the first glance, however,considering the weak evidence provided by the institution, the conclusion is unconvincing and unreliable.获得更多gre考试咨询点击进入>>>>澳际免费咨询顾问或联系QQ客服:
The institution has failed to take opinions from other groups into consideration. It is mentioned in the recommendation that a majority of faculty members indeed voted for coeducation, believing that the change is about to stimulate more students to apply to Grove. The call for coeducation in this college is neglected by the institution for it focuses on the results of a survey conducted by the student government. The scope, number and range of the students responded to the interview are never known to us, what&aposs more, whether the sample questions appeared on the survey are representative is very questionable. It is very likely that the survey is conducted among a small group of student who strongly advocate preserving the long tradition of all-female education. Correspondingly, the number of 80 percent is meaningless if we are kept in dark of the exact numbers of these interviewees.
Supposing it is the fact that many people want to keep the tradition unchanged, there is no direct connection between keeping the tradition and improving morale among students. The reason why the respondents are unwilling to admit men into its program might come from the fear that women are overcome by men or from the avoidance of rearrangement of the curriculum. It is true that over half of the alumni interviewed also opposed coeducation. At this time, a separate survey was conducted. Naturally, some questions are aroused in our heads. What are the differences between the survey conducted by the student government and the separate survey carried out among alumni? How many alumni have participated in the research? It is more likely that the contents of two surveys are different, as a consequence, the results of two researches couldn&apost be added up together simply. What&aposs more, whether the alumni supporting the college financially have been investigated in the survey is irresolute. What if the less half of the alumni maintain to provide financial support to the college are in favor of coeducation? Therore, keeping the long history tradition is likely to impair the financial support rather than strengthen it.
Overall, the conclusion drawn by the private institution is unreliable for the foundation of the outcome is unstable and unconvincing. Bore any final decision is made about the change of the long traditions of all-male education, the college&aposs governing committee are required to take all possible alternatives into consideration.
由这篇Argument来看,该考生的运气是不错的,因为这个Argument题目的推理/论证谬误相对较为明显,基本上就两个:第一,调查统计类谬误;第二,因为前提到结论的过大跨越而导致的"逻辑推不出"的谬误。
同该考生的Issue作文比,考生对自己的这篇Argument的写作显然信心十足。这从考生对前述两个逻辑谬误的描述和论证可以清楚地看出来。
我在这里想强调的是:Argument的写作绝对不仅仅是简单地找寻题目中的逻辑漏洞;更重要的是要对那些逻辑谬误之所以为谬误的论证。做到这一点,至少有三件事要做:第一,指出逻辑谬误;第二,举例说明逻辑谬误的存在;第三,提供别样解释(alternative explanations)来展示逻辑谬误。在这三方面,这个考生做的都不错,对题目中论者的逻辑链做了清晰的梳理和充分的论证。
最可贵的是,显然因为信心和从容的缘故,考生的语言表达流畅多了,尽管仍有些不必要的小问题。这为考生Argument的分析自然更增亮色。
综合总体水平,上述两篇作文得5分应该不算意外。
以上即是关于考生的新gre考试argument写作实例点评篇,希望以上信息能给大家带来帮助。小编提醒广大考生面对argument写作一定不要慌张,调整好状态,理清思路才是关键。
Amy GUO 经验: 16年 案例:4272 擅长:美国,澳洲,亚洲,欧洲
本网站(www.aoji.cn,刊载的所有内容,访问者可将本网站提供的内容或服务用于个人学习、研究或欣赏,以及其他非商业性或非盈利性用途,但同时应遵守著作权法及其他相关法律规定,不得侵犯本网站及相关权利人的合法权利。除此以外,将本网站任何内容或服务用于其他用途时,须征得本网站及相关权利人的书面许可,并支付报酬。
本网站内容原作者如不愿意在本网站刊登内容,请及时通知本站,予以删除。