GRE考試形式:中國大陸地區(qū)、香港、澳門、韓國目前執(zhí)行分開考試的形式。由機(jī)考(分析性寫作)和筆試(語文、數(shù)學(xué))組成。
第六篇文章
A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.
Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.
In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.
Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.
原文邏輯順序:用SB的最易帶牙套==〉早用比晚用SB的易帶牙套,每天用兩次SB的更易帶牙套==〉想不帶牙套就不用SB。
注:這篇文章大家一看肯定特別有親切感,因為這和新東方摸版和北美范文摸版非常的像!甚至,我懷疑,這就是后兩者的原型。這些研究考試的人發(fā)現(xiàn)這篇文章具有很好的操作性,并看上去結(jié)構(gòu)特別清晰。所以也就照葫蘆畫瓢。如果是這樣的話,研究這個原版的價值就不言而喻了。
The argument contains several facets that are questionable. 段首句指出存在問題,同樣沒有過多的修飾,簡潔明快。使文章迅速轉(zhuǎn)移到后面的實質(zhì)性分析。 First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. 指出第一個問題是調(diào)查類問題,并具體說出了是樣本可信度和樣本代表性,實際上這和后面的論證是對應(yīng)的。 In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. 指出第二個問題,是因果關(guān)系。 The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. 指出第三個問題,沒有提出上面因果關(guān)系的他因。 I will discuss each of these facets in turn.第一段簡潔明了,三個攻擊點統(tǒng)領(lǐng)下面三段。這里對原文的復(fù)述似乎并不詳細(xì)。因為原文的邏輯鏈很簡單,作者不用向我們證明他讀懂了,我們也知道他肯定讀懂了。不像第五個范文那樣,讀個原題就得半天。實際上,這里的重點放在了后面的分析上,同時在后面的分析中也包含了復(fù)述原題中的每一個條件。
In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. 第一點:考慮調(diào)查類問題。分為兩個分支論點,一個是有傾向的問題,一個是被調(diào)查者的代表性。 If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. 這里論證是否問卷中有l(wèi)oaded問題,方法為加條件后討論。One must also consider how broad the survey was. 這里論證被調(diào)查者的代表性。方法還是加條件后討論,三段式論證。 If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist.Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. 這又是典型的三段式論證:如果只是個別醫(yī)生的個別病人==〉有可能歸因于是個別現(xiàn)象==〉得到的結(jié)論無法推廣到整體。 In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.看到這里,一下子就想起了新東方,這正是他們極力推薦的層層讓步式論證,后面一段也是這樣的論證。論證方法為列舉他因。For example, were the survey respondents old people?Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region?Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.舉了兩個他因,注意到這里用的是問句,官方范文是很喜歡用問句的。
Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. 作了一下讓步,開始攻擊因果關(guān)系不成立。The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth. 這里就復(fù)述題目了,同時也是立起靶子,等待攻擊。 But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.指出沒有證據(jù)顯示有因果關(guān)系。先打拆開關(guān)系。
In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.這里舉出了個他因,甚至有點想逆轉(zhuǎn)原來的因果關(guān)系的意思,從而使已經(jīng)打拆開的因果關(guān)系分的更加清楚。
Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.這里繼續(xù)打拆上一段打開的因果關(guān)系,提出了他因,就像往傷口上撒一把鹽。打個比方,女生家長為了不讓女兒和一個男生在一起,就先把他兩個給隔離起來,然后最狠的就是,給那個男生找一個巨棒巨棒的新女朋友。For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped. 舉出第一種可能性。Weak結(jié)論(一天兩次更易帶牙套)。 It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.
舉出第二種可能性。Strengthen原結(jié)論(早用早帶牙套)的.It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.舉出第三種可能。論證方法為加條件后討論,討論采用三段式。
In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above. 這句話很經(jīng)典,摸版性很強(qiáng)。 The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.
給出第一條建議是針對沒有因果關(guān)系的那段的。It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.給出的第二條建議是針對因果關(guān)系中提供他因的那段??偟膩砜?,這里的提建議的方式以及位置都和新東方和北美范文很像。最后,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這文章所指出的邏輯錯誤都是大錯誤,那種脊梁骨似的錯誤,而對于小錯誤,比如他們report則不予討論,看得出來,官方的意思是,無論什么文章,都最優(yōu)先挑核心邏輯鏈中的重點錯誤,小錯誤能挑出來更好,但沒有也沒關(guān)系,前提是大錯誤都挑出來了并且論證充分。本文與前面的文章的差別之處就在于,很難找到文章的中心思想,只是羅列了錯誤并獨立的分析,過于平淡,而沒有對于文章的核心錯誤的把握。中華考試網(wǎng)
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable."
The author then develops the critique around three main points:
-- the reliability and generalizability of the survey results are open to question;
-- the argument assumes that a correlation amounts to a causal relationship; and
-- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the survey.
Each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail.
The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.
The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs.
The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt.
Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique.
For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.
感謝您閱讀《argument全部官方范文分析(8) 》一文,出國留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
第六篇文章
A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.
Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.
In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.
Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.
原文邏輯順序:用SB的最易帶牙套==〉早用比晚用SB的易帶牙套,每天用兩次SB的更易帶牙套==〉想不帶牙套就不用SB。
注:這篇文章大家一看肯定特別有親切感,因為這和新東方摸版和北美范文摸版非常的像!甚至,我懷疑,這就是后兩者的原型。這些研究考試的人發(fā)現(xiàn)這篇文章具有很好的操作性,并看上去結(jié)構(gòu)特別清晰。所以也就照葫蘆畫瓢。如果是這樣的話,研究這個原版的價值就不言而喻了。
The argument contains several facets that are questionable. 段首句指出存在問題,同樣沒有過多的修飾,簡潔明快。使文章迅速轉(zhuǎn)移到后面的實質(zhì)性分析。 First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. 指出第一個問題是調(diào)查類問題,并具體說出了是樣本可信度和樣本代表性,實際上這和后面的論證是對應(yīng)的。 In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. 指出第二個問題,是因果關(guān)系。 The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. 指出第三個問題,沒有提出上面因果關(guān)系的他因。 I will discuss each of these facets in turn.第一段簡潔明了,三個攻擊點統(tǒng)領(lǐng)下面三段。這里對原文的復(fù)述似乎并不詳細(xì)。因為原文的邏輯鏈很簡單,作者不用向我們證明他讀懂了,我們也知道他肯定讀懂了。不像第五個范文那樣,讀個原題就得半天。實際上,這里的重點放在了后面的分析上,同時在后面的分析中也包含了復(fù)述原題中的每一個條件。
In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. 第一點:考慮調(diào)查類問題。分為兩個分支論點,一個是有傾向的問題,一個是被調(diào)查者的代表性。 If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. 這里論證是否問卷中有l(wèi)oaded問題,方法為加條件后討論。One must also consider how broad the survey was. 這里論證被調(diào)查者的代表性。方法還是加條件后討論,三段式論證。 If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist.Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. 這又是典型的三段式論證:如果只是個別醫(yī)生的個別病人==〉有可能歸因于是個別現(xiàn)象==〉得到的結(jié)論無法推廣到整體。 In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.看到這里,一下子就想起了新東方,這正是他們極力推薦的層層讓步式論證,后面一段也是這樣的論證。論證方法為列舉他因。For example, were the survey respondents old people?Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region?Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.舉了兩個他因,注意到這里用的是問句,官方范文是很喜歡用問句的。
Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. 作了一下讓步,開始攻擊因果關(guān)系不成立。The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth. 這里就復(fù)述題目了,同時也是立起靶子,等待攻擊。 But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.指出沒有證據(jù)顯示有因果關(guān)系。先打拆開關(guān)系。
In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.這里舉出了個他因,甚至有點想逆轉(zhuǎn)原來的因果關(guān)系的意思,從而使已經(jīng)打拆開的因果關(guān)系分的更加清楚。
Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.這里繼續(xù)打拆上一段打開的因果關(guān)系,提出了他因,就像往傷口上撒一把鹽。打個比方,女生家長為了不讓女兒和一個男生在一起,就先把他兩個給隔離起來,然后最狠的就是,給那個男生找一個巨棒巨棒的新女朋友。For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped. 舉出第一種可能性。Weak結(jié)論(一天兩次更易帶牙套)。 It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.
舉出第二種可能性。Strengthen原結(jié)論(早用早帶牙套)的.It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.舉出第三種可能。論證方法為加條件后討論,討論采用三段式。
In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above. 這句話很經(jīng)典,摸版性很強(qiáng)。 The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.
給出第一條建議是針對沒有因果關(guān)系的那段的。It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.給出的第二條建議是針對因果關(guān)系中提供他因的那段??偟膩砜?,這里的提建議的方式以及位置都和新東方和北美范文很像。最后,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這文章所指出的邏輯錯誤都是大錯誤,那種脊梁骨似的錯誤,而對于小錯誤,比如他們report則不予討論,看得出來,官方的意思是,無論什么文章,都最優(yōu)先挑核心邏輯鏈中的重點錯誤,小錯誤能挑出來更好,但沒有也沒關(guān)系,前提是大錯誤都挑出來了并且論證充分。本文與前面的文章的差別之處就在于,很難找到文章的中心思想,只是羅列了錯誤并獨立的分析,過于平淡,而沒有對于文章的核心錯誤的把握。中華考試網(wǎng)
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable."
The author then develops the critique around three main points:
-- the reliability and generalizability of the survey results are open to question;
-- the argument assumes that a correlation amounts to a causal relationship; and
-- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the survey.
Each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail.
The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.
The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs.
The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt.
Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique.
For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.
感謝您閱讀《argument全部官方范文分析(8) 》一文,出國留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。