本文主要講解GRE作文相關(guān)內(nèi)容，希望能幫助童鞋們提高寫(xiě)作能力。出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)liuxue86.com編輯部敬上。
題目
Argument242 The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College.
"To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students, these institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. Groveton's honor code replaced an old-fashioned system in which students were closely monitored by teachers and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported. The honor code has proven far more successful: in the first year it was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey conducted by the Groveton honor council, a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without."
翻譯
為解決最近上報(bào)的大學(xué)生作弊現(xiàn)象顯著增加的問(wèn)題，大學(xué)和學(xué)院應(yīng)該采取和Groveton學(xué)院類(lèi)似的誠(chéng)信制度，該制度要求學(xué)生同意在學(xué)業(yè)中不作弊，并且當(dāng)他們懷疑別人作弊的時(shí)候通知老師。Groveton的誠(chéng)信知道代替了原有的學(xué)生被老師嚴(yán)密監(jiān)視的老體制，在老體制中平均每年有30起作弊被上報(bào)。該制度被證明成功的多：在它實(shí)施的第一年，學(xué)生上報(bào)了21起作弊；五年后，這一數(shù)值下降到了14起。而且，在最近一次由Groveton誠(chéng)信委員會(huì)組織的調(diào)查中，大部分學(xué)生說(shuō)有了誠(chéng)信制度他們更加不太可能作弊。
頻次
在上個(gè)作文季度中，該題出現(xiàn)17次
邏輯思路
結(jié)論： 大家應(yīng)該采用G的誠(chéng)信制度
論據(jù)一：老制度的劣勢(shì)
論據(jù)二：新制度的優(yōu)勢(shì)（其中包含兩個(gè)分支）
展開(kāi)攻擊
攻擊點(diǎn)一：Hasty Generalization
認(rèn)為G的honor code很成功，其它學(xué)校也應(yīng)該采納，并且告訴我們honor code 的具體內(nèi)容。這是一個(gè)直接從結(jié)論入手的攻擊點(diǎn)，你可以把honor code 的內(nèi)容看作文章的前提而不去攻擊，這樣只能簡(jiǎn)單的說(shuō)G的誠(chéng)信制度可能帶有相當(dāng)嚴(yán)厲的懲罰措施或放任的自由度，前者可能并不適用于那些自主開(kāi)放給予學(xué)生充分信任的學(xué)校（我記得Cornell好像給予學(xué)生充分的信任，考試一般不設(shè)supervisor），后者可能使原本考試體制形如雞肋學(xué)校雪上加霜。當(dāng)然，這個(gè)前提本身值得我們?nèi)ニ伎肌驗(yàn)閔onor code 的validity值得懷疑：第一、同意不作弊不代表肯定不作弊；第二、懷疑別人作弊往往帶有主觀性，沒(méi)有作弊而被認(rèn)定為作弊顯然荒謬，可能對(duì)學(xué)生心理造成不好的影響
攻擊點(diǎn)二：Incomplete Comparison
感謝您閱讀《GRE作文Argument242詳解 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
題目
Argument242 The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College.
"To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students, these institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. Groveton's honor code replaced an old-fashioned system in which students were closely monitored by teachers and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported. The honor code has proven far more successful: in the first year it was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey conducted by the Groveton honor council, a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without."
翻譯
為解決最近上報(bào)的大學(xué)生作弊現(xiàn)象顯著增加的問(wèn)題，大學(xué)和學(xué)院應(yīng)該采取和Groveton學(xué)院類(lèi)似的誠(chéng)信制度，該制度要求學(xué)生同意在學(xué)業(yè)中不作弊，并且當(dāng)他們懷疑別人作弊的時(shí)候通知老師。Groveton的誠(chéng)信知道代替了原有的學(xué)生被老師嚴(yán)密監(jiān)視的老體制，在老體制中平均每年有30起作弊被上報(bào)。該制度被證明成功的多：在它實(shí)施的第一年，學(xué)生上報(bào)了21起作弊；五年后，這一數(shù)值下降到了14起。而且，在最近一次由Groveton誠(chéng)信委員會(huì)組織的調(diào)查中，大部分學(xué)生說(shuō)有了誠(chéng)信制度他們更加不太可能作弊。
頻次
在上個(gè)作文季度中，該題出現(xiàn)17次
邏輯思路
結(jié)論： 大家應(yīng)該采用G的誠(chéng)信制度
論據(jù)一：老制度的劣勢(shì)
論據(jù)二：新制度的優(yōu)勢(shì)（其中包含兩個(gè)分支）
展開(kāi)攻擊
攻擊點(diǎn)一：Hasty Generalization
認(rèn)為G的honor code很成功，其它學(xué)校也應(yīng)該采納，并且告訴我們honor code 的具體內(nèi)容。這是一個(gè)直接從結(jié)論入手的攻擊點(diǎn)，你可以把honor code 的內(nèi)容看作文章的前提而不去攻擊，這樣只能簡(jiǎn)單的說(shuō)G的誠(chéng)信制度可能帶有相當(dāng)嚴(yán)厲的懲罰措施或放任的自由度，前者可能并不適用于那些自主開(kāi)放給予學(xué)生充分信任的學(xué)校（我記得Cornell好像給予學(xué)生充分的信任，考試一般不設(shè)supervisor），后者可能使原本考試體制形如雞肋學(xué)校雪上加霜。當(dāng)然，這個(gè)前提本身值得我們?nèi)ニ伎肌驗(yàn)閔onor code 的validity值得懷疑：第一、同意不作弊不代表肯定不作弊；第二、懷疑別人作弊往往帶有主觀性，沒(méi)有作弊而被認(rèn)定為作弊顯然荒謬，可能對(duì)學(xué)生心理造成不好的影響
攻擊點(diǎn)二：Incomplete Comparison
感謝您閱讀《GRE作文Argument242詳解 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。