GMAT作文机经整理：高中减课程会不会增加升学率降低税费.

　　4月5日GMAT换库后，小编为大家收集整理4月份的GMAT作文机经，这篇是关于高中减课程会不会增加升学率，降低税费的文章，分享给大家，希望对大家有所帮助，仅供参考。

　　【原始】

作文：似乎之前哪里看到过的题目，某高中供学生选的课太多，然后有人拿另一个private school做比较说人家的课诺，才80几个，但升大学比例很多的诺，所以我们要把那些课减半!我们的升学率就上去了!很好写的一道题。。。。

　　【考古】

AWA----CS(应该是这个代码)这所高校有100种不同的课程，但一个比较小的私人高校只有80种basic课程，这所小的私人高校进大学的比率比CS这所高校高。于是，减少CS高校的除basic课程以外的种类就可以提高升学率以及save tax。

　　V2

　　作文 Consolidated High School。 我把机经全刷了一遍~

　　【原题】AA101

　　The following appeared in an editorial from a newspaper serving the town of Saluda:

　　“The Saluda Consolidated High School offers more than 200 different courses from which its students can choose. A much smaller private school down the street offers a basic curriculum of only 80 different courses, but it consistently sends a higher proportion of its graduating seniors on to college than Consolidated does. By eliminating at least half of the courses offered there and focusing on a basic curriculum, we could improve student performance at Consolidated and also save many tax dollars.”

　　Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

　　SC这个高中有超过200中不同的课程，而另一个更小的私立学校之提供80个不同课程，但是那个学校的大学入学率更高。所以SC觉得应该减少至少一半的课程来提高入学率并减少赋税

　　【参考思路】

　　1.Gratuitous Assumption——无根据假设： A 不导致B(course的数量和入学率没有因果关系，入学率与考试分数相关，而课程少不一定学生分数就高)

　　2.单因果错误Casual-relationship——有他因(如小型私立学校只招收精英学生，学生更努力，师资力量更好等原因同样可以使入学率更高)

　　3.样本不足Insufficient example(只是一个学校的例子不代表所有学校都适用，并不能说明只要course少入学率就高)

　　4. 错误类比a false analogy(小型私立学校与SC高中存在差异，如SC高中位于城中心娱乐区，减少课程后学生的空余时间增加反而容易去花天酒地)

　　5. 时地全等all things are equal(过去经验现在不一定适用，比如大学录取标准出现了调整，知识面广越来越重要，学过更多课程多反而容易进入大学)

　　6. 以小推大(.升学率不是衡量students’ performance的唯一标准。 the proportion of students who go on to college is an overall measure of student performance.)

　　PS：另两个高阶思路可参考

　　6.课程的减少不一定真的降低学校的运行费用，费用取决于教师和学生数量以及占用教室的数量，减少课程不一定会降低税负。

　　7.这家报纸可能存在既得利益，不中立。

　　【参考范文】

　　In this editorial the author recommends that Saluda’s Consolidated High School eliminate half of its 200 courses and focus primarily on basic curriculum in order to improve student performance and save tax revenues. The author’s recommendation is problematic for several reasons.

　　To begin with, the author assumes that the only relevant difference between Consolidated and the private school is the number of courses offered by each. However, other relevant differences between the schools might account for the difference in the proportion of their graduates who go on to college. For example, the private school’s students might be selected from a pool of gifted or exceptional students, or might have to meet rigorous admission standards whereas Consolidated’s students might be drawn from the community at large with little or no qualification for admission.

　　Next, the author assumes that the proportion of students who go on to college is an overall measure of student performance. While this is a tempting assumption, its truth is by no means obvious. If student excellence is narrowly dined in terms of the student’s ability to gain access to college, this assumption is somewhat reasonable. However, given a broader conception of student excellence that takes into account student’s ability to learn and apply their knowledge to new situations, its is not obvious that college admission is reliable indicator of performance. For example, students in non-academic disciplines could conceivably perform at high levels within these disciplines but nevertheless be unable to meet college admission standards.

　　Finally, the author assumes that savings in tax revenues will result from the reduced costs of funding the paired-down curriculum. This is not necessarily true. For example, it could turn out that both programs serve the same number of students and require the same number of classrooms and teacher.

　　In conclusion, the author has not made a convincing case for the recommendation to eliminate courses at Consolidated and focus on a basic curriculum. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to provide evidence that Consolidated and the private school were sufficiently similar to warrant the analogy between them. Moreover, the relationship between student performance and college admission and the mechanism whereby savings in tax revenues would be accomplished would have to be clarified.

　　以上就是高中减课程会不会增加升学率，降低税费的GMAT作文机经的全部内容，考生朋友可以有选择的看看，最后需要提醒各位的是，机经虽然会对我们解题有所帮助，但是在考场中即使题目很像也要避免秒选，最后祝大家都能考出好成绩。