（范文）
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance， his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent， yet it can't stand much reexamination.
I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease， but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain， as we all know， many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance， some type of particular protein it might include， instead of the iron， is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.
Moreover， even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below， the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation， we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron， however， we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense， “Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease？” The answer we can't obtain through this short argument， thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.
As it stands， the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies， which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life， scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected； and it is just for this point， I'm afraid， no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. （352 words）
——silentwings
原則二：“大膽創(chuàng)新，敢于說'不'”。
這個(gè)原則是就思想內(nèi)容本身而提出的，主要就ISSUE而言。之所以如此，是因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在的題庫中有太多顯而易見的明顯帶有“常識(shí)偏見性”的話題，比如下面我們要舉例說明的這一題：
33.“Creating an appealing image has become more important in contemporary society than is the reality or truth behind that image.”
我想大部分考生在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)一定會(huì)不約而同地對(duì)這道題說“DISAGREE”，因?yàn)閭鹘y(tǒng)的教育和是非觀很容易讓我們接受這樣的一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)——“人不可貌像，海水不可斗量”。這樣，ETS膽敢認(rèn)為“表面的虛浮外表比實(shí)質(zhì)的東西重要”，充分暴露了它資本主義沒落腐朽的罪惡本質(zhì)和虛偽貪婪的丑惡嘴臉，于是打筆一揮，打他個(gè)鼻青臉腫再說。
不可否認(rèn)，這個(gè)話題寫“否定”符合正常價(jià)值觀和正常思維，比較容易找到地方下手，但是平常我們?cè)谟?xùn)練準(zhǔn)備作文時(shí)，應(yīng)該在遇到這類“難于從反面論證”的題目盡量擯棄這種正常思維，而鍛煉自己的“創(chuàng)新思維”，即敢于對(duì)自己的“陳規(guī)思維”說“不”！大家可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，ETS找來的每道話題都是經(jīng)過嚴(yán)格的篩選和試驗(yàn)的，以保證其客觀性和公正性，從而無論你對(duì)該話題持什么態(tài)度，都不會(huì)影響你在現(xiàn)實(shí)中的表現(xiàn)，從而每個(gè)觀點(diǎn)闡述就是一種思維邏輯的“游戲”，ETS不是要看你的思想觀點(diǎn)到底出不出格，而是看你將任何一個(gè)你所持有的觀點(diǎn)論證的天衣無縫。
因?yàn)樵贗SSUE中，你完全可以將一個(gè)漏洞百出的話題包裝成真理，同樣也可將真理辯駁成天大的謬誤，這沒有關(guān)系，對(duì)于一個(gè)特別注重“新思維”開發(fā)的美國(guó)人來說，創(chuàng)新思維無疑是他們最鐘愛的東西，這也就是高分作文的一個(gè)捷徑——求新求異！我始終相信，只要肯往這方面想，思維的馬達(dá)很容易就開動(dòng)起來，通過不斷練習(xí)，你真的會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)你的一手“銅齒鐵牙”已經(jīng)足以讓你在GRE作文的考場(chǎng)上稱雄稱霸，“滿分”是意料中的事。下面我提供兩篇范文，第一篇是正常思維論辯，第二篇?jiǎng)t是從AGREE的角度來論證，讀者可以從中參詳一二。
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance， his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent， yet it can't stand much reexamination.
I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease， but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain， as we all know， many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance， some type of particular protein it might include， instead of the iron， is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.
Moreover， even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below， the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation， we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron， however， we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense， “Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease？” The answer we can't obtain through this short argument， thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.
As it stands， the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies， which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life， scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected； and it is just for this point， I'm afraid， no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. （352 words）
——silentwings
原則二：“大膽創(chuàng)新，敢于說'不'”。
這個(gè)原則是就思想內(nèi)容本身而提出的，主要就ISSUE而言。之所以如此，是因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在的題庫中有太多顯而易見的明顯帶有“常識(shí)偏見性”的話題，比如下面我們要舉例說明的這一題：
33.“Creating an appealing image has become more important in contemporary society than is the reality or truth behind that image.”
我想大部分考生在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)一定會(huì)不約而同地對(duì)這道題說“DISAGREE”，因?yàn)閭鹘y(tǒng)的教育和是非觀很容易讓我們接受這樣的一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)——“人不可貌像，海水不可斗量”。這樣，ETS膽敢認(rèn)為“表面的虛浮外表比實(shí)質(zhì)的東西重要”，充分暴露了它資本主義沒落腐朽的罪惡本質(zhì)和虛偽貪婪的丑惡嘴臉，于是打筆一揮，打他個(gè)鼻青臉腫再說。
不可否認(rèn)，這個(gè)話題寫“否定”符合正常價(jià)值觀和正常思維，比較容易找到地方下手，但是平常我們?cè)谟?xùn)練準(zhǔn)備作文時(shí)，應(yīng)該在遇到這類“難于從反面論證”的題目盡量擯棄這種正常思維，而鍛煉自己的“創(chuàng)新思維”，即敢于對(duì)自己的“陳規(guī)思維”說“不”！大家可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，ETS找來的每道話題都是經(jīng)過嚴(yán)格的篩選和試驗(yàn)的，以保證其客觀性和公正性，從而無論你對(duì)該話題持什么態(tài)度，都不會(huì)影響你在現(xiàn)實(shí)中的表現(xiàn)，從而每個(gè)觀點(diǎn)闡述就是一種思維邏輯的“游戲”，ETS不是要看你的思想觀點(diǎn)到底出不出格，而是看你將任何一個(gè)你所持有的觀點(diǎn)論證的天衣無縫。
因?yàn)樵贗SSUE中，你完全可以將一個(gè)漏洞百出的話題包裝成真理，同樣也可將真理辯駁成天大的謬誤，這沒有關(guān)系，對(duì)于一個(gè)特別注重“新思維”開發(fā)的美國(guó)人來說，創(chuàng)新思維無疑是他們最鐘愛的東西，這也就是高分作文的一個(gè)捷徑——求新求異！我始終相信，只要肯往這方面想，思維的馬達(dá)很容易就開動(dòng)起來，通過不斷練習(xí)，你真的會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)你的一手“銅齒鐵牙”已經(jīng)足以讓你在GRE作文的考場(chǎng)上稱雄稱霸，“滿分”是意料中的事。下面我提供兩篇范文，第一篇是正常思維論辯，第二篇?jiǎng)t是從AGREE的角度來論證，讀者可以從中參詳一二。