這篇《GRE留學(xué)外語考試作文改革后對argument寫作所造成的變化》是為大家整理的，希望對大家有所幫助。以下信息僅供參考?。?！
我們討論一下新GRE作文改革后，對于argument寫作所造成的變化，希望能夠幫助到大家，也希望大家能多多分享給考G的戰(zhàn)友們!
在GRE作文中，多數(shù)同學(xué)會覺得Argument比Issue容易上手，也更容易形成固定的寫作套路。尤其是老GRE中， Argument的寫作要求(instructions)千篇一律，可以用同樣的思路來應(yīng)對，主要的工作是針對不同類別的邏輯錯誤準(zhǔn)備相應(yīng)的模板。而新GRE中情況有了變化：每一篇Argument材料之后都有附有一段instructions，指出寫作角度和側(cè)重點(diǎn)。本文針對新GRE中Argument的一大類instructions，談?wù)勎覀儗ζ鋬?nèi)涵的理解，并給出我們在寫作思路上的建議。由于是討論特定類型的Argument寫法，因此本文并不是Argument的入門介紹，而是適合對Argument已有一定的了解的同學(xué)來閱讀參考。
新GRE的Argument中常見以下幾種instructions：
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
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.
這幾段instructions可歸為一大類，關(guān)鍵詞都是evaluate，因此我們將其稱之為“evaluate類”Argument(進(jìn)一步細(xì)分的話可以是question類和evidence類)。相信大家很容易就能讀懂這幾段話的字面意思，下面我們就分享一下我們對這類instructions的理解和分析。
1. 無論是討論需要提出并回答哪些問題，還是討論需要哪些證據(jù)，都表明原文作者在給出結(jié)論/建議/預(yù)測時有所考慮不周。這類Argument寫作的實(shí)質(zhì)，就是討論原文作者忽略的方面等，指出這些額外信息一旦獲得，會對作者的結(jié)論/建議/預(yù)測產(chǎn)生怎樣的影響。
2. 從第一點(diǎn)中可以看出，原文因?yàn)橐恍┻壿嬪e誤從而有缺陷，這些邏輯錯誤可能是錯誤類比，可能是post ergo propter hoc，還可能是片面因果關(guān)系等等。在舊GRE中，論證的思路和角度通常就是直接指出邏輯錯誤的存在，再舉例說明原文作者忽略的某些情況/因素會導(dǎo)致原文的觀點(diǎn)不可靠/不成立。但是在新GRE的這類instructions中，我們認(rèn)為論證角度側(cè)重于在具體answers/evidence的情況下原文的論證/結(jié)論/建議/預(yù)測是否成立/有效。同時寫作的出發(fā)點(diǎn)也不再側(cè)重探討如何加強(qiáng)原文的結(jié)論(很多同學(xué)習(xí)慣在開頭或結(jié)尾寫to strengthen the argument)，而是僅僅對原文進(jìn)行分析。
3. 評價(evaluate)本身是一個中性的詞，包括正反兩方面：評價一個事物，可以說它好，也可以說它壞。因此我們建議，在寫這類Argument的時候，不僅要像在舊GRE中那樣討論哪些回答/證據(jù)可能導(dǎo)致作者的結(jié)論不成立或得到削弱(反面)，也要討論哪些回答/證據(jù)可以加強(qiáng)作者的結(jié)論(正面)。在前面引述的最后一種instructions中，更是明確地提到了這一點(diǎn)：explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument。我們覺得這表明新GRE的Argument寫作要求一個更客觀中立的角度，而不像舊GRE中那樣完全批判式地指出原文的結(jié)論如何不靠譜。
羅嗦了這么多，其實(shí)要點(diǎn)只有兩個：(1)批判要針對具體回答/證據(jù)的情況，(2)兼顧正反兩方面的回答/證據(jù)。上面的原理性闡述難免枯燥，下面我們給出一個具體例子，通過新舊GRE寫法對比，讓大家對“evaluate類”Argument寫法的印象更具體?！氨睒O鹿”的Argument相信很多同學(xué)都遇到過，其原文如下：
Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
下面是舊GRE時代一位同學(xué)的習(xí)作。請大家忽略一些語言/邏輯方面的小問題，關(guān)注的是寫作角度和模式化語言：
In this editorial in a wildlife journal, the author attributes the decline in arctic deer population to the global warming which makes deer unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea. To substantiate his hypothesis, reports from local hunter are cited as an evidence to prove the decline of deer population. Quite convincing though it may appear to be at first glance, the author’s argument suffers from several logical flaws which render his conclusion highly dubious.
Firstly, he alleges there has been a decrease of deer population merely based on the report from local hunter, which is questionable since local hunter cannot cover the whole arctic region, and thus be unable to provide accurate data concerning deer population. It is very likely that deer have intentionally avoided direct contact with hunters in order to survive the hunting. In such a case, hunters would have naturally observed less deer while the whole population remains the same or even rise. Hence, with inadequate information offered by the author, it’s unclear whether the deer population has decreased or not.
Secondly, the recent trend of global warming cannot necessarily mean there lies an increase of temperature in arctic area. Since Earth’s climate system is highly intricate, there could be huge difference in separate regions where one suffers from heat waves while the other witnesses an even colder climate. Without any direct temperature data inside arctic region, we could not say the temperature of arctic has actually increased.
Even if we acknowledge the alleged facts that deer population has dropped and temperature has risen, it’s too early to draw the conclusion that they have causal relationship. As a matter of fact, the population of one species highly depends on several factors, like the quantity of their prey and predators, besides temperature. To be specific, a lethal epidemic could decimate deer in the Arctic Circle, while it has nothing to do with global warming. Without taking such factors into consideration, the author draws the conclusion too hastily and presumptuously.
Finally, granted that decrease in population does result from global warming, the author naively accuses it of devastating the migration pattern adopted by arctic deer. As I have mentioned above, the survival of a species is highly dependent on many factors. Provided that global warming, with a significant increase of ambient carbon dioxide, has greatly acidified the ocean, it is likely that plants which need water to sustain their life would be threatened or even killed. Therefore, failure to investigate other possibilities renders author’s statement untenable.
To sum up, the author fails to provide substantial evidence proving his allegation regarding deer population and temperature. What’s more, he is unable to prove there is a causal relationship between them. If he could have present more accurate and specific data regarding deer population and temperature, as well as scrutinized another potential factors contributing to population change, his statement would likely be more persuasive.
這里我們用粗體突出了一部分具有舊GRE特點(diǎn)的語句，大家可以看出它們大多是直接批評原文的邏輯漏洞，直接指出原文的結(jié)論不可靠。在論述每個邏輯缺陷時，也只是談到了會導(dǎo)致原文結(jié)論不成立的反面情況和條件。
在新GRE中，這篇Argument后的instructions為：
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.
下面是這篇Argument保留原來的論證素材，按照新的要求改寫之后的文章：
In this argument, the author cites reports from local hunters as evidence for the decline of the arctic deer populations, and subsequently attributes this decline to global warming, which allegedly makes deer unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea.Although the argument seems plausible at first glance, a close scrutiny will reveal that additional evidence is necessary for an effective evaluation of its validity.
Firstly, the author asserts a decrease in the deer populations merely based on reports from local hunters. However, such reports may not serve as a convincing indicator, since the deer might have intentionally avoided direct contact with hunters in order to survive hunting. Therefore, more persuasive evidence must be presented for a better evaluation of the populations. For example, a scientific study surveying the entire area could offer much stronger evidence for the change in deer populations. If the results of the study show that the overall populations are indeed on the decline, it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it. On the other hand, if the results evidence constant or even increasing populations, the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless.
Secondly, specific evidence regarding the change of temperature in the arctic regions is also needed to evaluate the author’s reference of global warming. This is because the earth’s climate is an intricate system and the trend of global warming does not necessarily result in an increase in temperature and cause sea ice to melt in the local arctic regions of interest. If local temperature data illustrate a non-varying or even colder climate, the adoption of global warming to account for phenomena in these regions will be highly suspicious. On the contrary, local temperatures that manifest a climate change consistent with the general trend of global warming will help strengthen this point of reasoning in the argument.
Furthermore, even if we corroborate the decline in deer populations and acknowledge a warmer climate in the arctic regions, further evidence is still necessary for an evaluation of the author’s causal association of the decline in deer populations with the increased local temperatures. As a matter of fact, the populations of deer depend on more factors than climate alone, such as the quantity of their predators and epidemics. Consequently, it is of great significance to examine all the possible causes for population changes, and find out evidence for the roles they are playing. If evidence demonstrates that reasons other than increased temperatures are primarily responsible for the observed population decline, the purported link between this decline and climate change will be greatly weakened. Nevertheless, on condition that evidence is found to be able to testify the negligibility of all the other influences and rule out all the alternative explanations for the population decline, the causal relationship between the decrease and warmer climate, claimed in the argument, will be considerably strengthened.
Finally, granted that the deer populations do decline due to increased local temperatures associated with the global warming, concrete evidence still remains desirable to evaluate the author’s assertion that it is via disturbing the deer’s migration patterns that the warmer climate reduces the populations. As mentioned above, the survival of deer relies on numerous factors, many of which are likely to be affected by temperature, and hence evidence from investigation into all these temperature dependent factors has to be obtained. Provided that such evidence reveals, for instance, that the higher temperatures endanger plants the deer mainly feed on and that the population drop is a result of food shortage caused by increased temperatures but not inability to migrate, the conclusion of the argument will prove untenable. Conversely, evidence undoubtedly exhibiting that the warmer climate melts the sea ice and leads to the deer’s failure to follow the old-aged migration pattern and ultimately their massive death will be in strong support of the proposed reason for the drop of deer populations in the argument.
To sum up, evidence beyond what has been brought forward by the author is required for a legitimate evaluation of the reasoning and conclusion of the argument. Specifically, detailed and reliable evidence concerning the deer populations, the climate change in the arctic regions, as well as all the factors that are capable of affecting the deer populations, whether temperature dependent or not, will be helpful with evaluating the credibility of the argument.
大家可以明顯看出寫作角度的不同，我們來具體看一下要點(diǎn)是怎樣體現(xiàn)的：
(1)在特定evidence的基礎(chǔ)上評價原文，而不是直接說原文不靠譜。例如在第二段if the results evidence constant or even increasing populations, the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless，而不像舊GRE中那樣直接說with inadequate information offered by the author, it’s unclear whether the deer population has decreased or not。
(2)既論及反面evidence，也討論正面evidence。同樣舉第二段的例子，既談到某些evidence會使得it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it，也談到某些evidence會導(dǎo)致the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless。
(3)相信大家發(fā)現(xiàn)了，這樣的分析會顯著增加文章的長度(486→734詞)，這是由于我們加入了evidence支持作者claim的可能性和由此帶來的影響。在實(shí)際的考試中可能會時間不夠，我們的建議是減少分析的點(diǎn)(例如只分析最重要的或漏洞最明顯的三個)，以保證每一段的深度和分量。
還有一點(diǎn)，大家可以注意到我們在evaluate原文的時候盡量具體，例如在第二段里我們說it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it，而不是泛泛地說the argument will be strengthened。我們覺得這樣具體化的論斷更嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)也更有說服力。
通過這個例子的比對，是不是覺得“evaluate類”Argument也不難寫呢?只要熟悉一下這類寫作套路，那么準(zhǔn)備好的素材都還可以使用，找出的邏輯錯誤都可以改造成evaluate角度。相信大家在練習(xí)幾次之后就能適應(yīng)這類新GRE的要求。
在結(jié)束本文之前，我們還想指出我們在改作文時常遇到的一個小錯誤和一個邏輯漏洞。首先，evidence做名詞的時候幾乎總是不可數(shù)，所以大家不要加s或者a/an。其次，建議大家不要采用questions to be answered to strengthen the argument或者evidence needed to strengthen the argument這類說法， 因?yàn)椤盎卮饐栴}”、“提出證據(jù)”的行為不能起到strengthen the argument的作用，只有某些特定的回答和證據(jù)才能夠strengthen the argument，而某些回答和證據(jù)可能weaken the argument，同時回答問題、提出證據(jù)僅僅為了評價(evaluate)，是一個中性目的，因此我們建議改寫成to evaluate the argument等。
我們討論一下新GRE作文改革后，對于argument寫作所造成的變化，希望能夠幫助到大家，也希望大家能多多分享給考G的戰(zhàn)友們!
在GRE作文中，多數(shù)同學(xué)會覺得Argument比Issue容易上手，也更容易形成固定的寫作套路。尤其是老GRE中， Argument的寫作要求(instructions)千篇一律，可以用同樣的思路來應(yīng)對，主要的工作是針對不同類別的邏輯錯誤準(zhǔn)備相應(yīng)的模板。而新GRE中情況有了變化：每一篇Argument材料之后都有附有一段instructions，指出寫作角度和側(cè)重點(diǎn)。本文針對新GRE中Argument的一大類instructions，談?wù)勎覀儗ζ鋬?nèi)涵的理解，并給出我們在寫作思路上的建議。由于是討論特定類型的Argument寫法，因此本文并不是Argument的入門介紹，而是適合對Argument已有一定的了解的同學(xué)來閱讀參考。
新GRE的Argument中常見以下幾種instructions：
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
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.
這幾段instructions可歸為一大類，關(guān)鍵詞都是evaluate，因此我們將其稱之為“evaluate類”Argument(進(jìn)一步細(xì)分的話可以是question類和evidence類)。相信大家很容易就能讀懂這幾段話的字面意思，下面我們就分享一下我們對這類instructions的理解和分析。
1. 無論是討論需要提出并回答哪些問題，還是討論需要哪些證據(jù)，都表明原文作者在給出結(jié)論/建議/預(yù)測時有所考慮不周。這類Argument寫作的實(shí)質(zhì)，就是討論原文作者忽略的方面等，指出這些額外信息一旦獲得，會對作者的結(jié)論/建議/預(yù)測產(chǎn)生怎樣的影響。
2. 從第一點(diǎn)中可以看出，原文因?yàn)橐恍┻壿嬪e誤從而有缺陷，這些邏輯錯誤可能是錯誤類比，可能是post ergo propter hoc，還可能是片面因果關(guān)系等等。在舊GRE中，論證的思路和角度通常就是直接指出邏輯錯誤的存在，再舉例說明原文作者忽略的某些情況/因素會導(dǎo)致原文的觀點(diǎn)不可靠/不成立。但是在新GRE的這類instructions中，我們認(rèn)為論證角度側(cè)重于在具體answers/evidence的情況下原文的論證/結(jié)論/建議/預(yù)測是否成立/有效。同時寫作的出發(fā)點(diǎn)也不再側(cè)重探討如何加強(qiáng)原文的結(jié)論(很多同學(xué)習(xí)慣在開頭或結(jié)尾寫to strengthen the argument)，而是僅僅對原文進(jìn)行分析。
3. 評價(evaluate)本身是一個中性的詞，包括正反兩方面：評價一個事物，可以說它好，也可以說它壞。因此我們建議，在寫這類Argument的時候，不僅要像在舊GRE中那樣討論哪些回答/證據(jù)可能導(dǎo)致作者的結(jié)論不成立或得到削弱(反面)，也要討論哪些回答/證據(jù)可以加強(qiáng)作者的結(jié)論(正面)。在前面引述的最后一種instructions中，更是明確地提到了這一點(diǎn)：explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument。我們覺得這表明新GRE的Argument寫作要求一個更客觀中立的角度，而不像舊GRE中那樣完全批判式地指出原文的結(jié)論如何不靠譜。
羅嗦了這么多，其實(shí)要點(diǎn)只有兩個：(1)批判要針對具體回答/證據(jù)的情況，(2)兼顧正反兩方面的回答/證據(jù)。上面的原理性闡述難免枯燥，下面我們給出一個具體例子，通過新舊GRE寫法對比，讓大家對“evaluate類”Argument寫法的印象更具體?！氨睒O鹿”的Argument相信很多同學(xué)都遇到過，其原文如下：
Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
下面是舊GRE時代一位同學(xué)的習(xí)作。請大家忽略一些語言/邏輯方面的小問題，關(guān)注的是寫作角度和模式化語言：
In this editorial in a wildlife journal, the author attributes the decline in arctic deer population to the global warming which makes deer unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea. To substantiate his hypothesis, reports from local hunter are cited as an evidence to prove the decline of deer population. Quite convincing though it may appear to be at first glance, the author’s argument suffers from several logical flaws which render his conclusion highly dubious.
Firstly, he alleges there has been a decrease of deer population merely based on the report from local hunter, which is questionable since local hunter cannot cover the whole arctic region, and thus be unable to provide accurate data concerning deer population. It is very likely that deer have intentionally avoided direct contact with hunters in order to survive the hunting. In such a case, hunters would have naturally observed less deer while the whole population remains the same or even rise. Hence, with inadequate information offered by the author, it’s unclear whether the deer population has decreased or not.
Secondly, the recent trend of global warming cannot necessarily mean there lies an increase of temperature in arctic area. Since Earth’s climate system is highly intricate, there could be huge difference in separate regions where one suffers from heat waves while the other witnesses an even colder climate. Without any direct temperature data inside arctic region, we could not say the temperature of arctic has actually increased.
Even if we acknowledge the alleged facts that deer population has dropped and temperature has risen, it’s too early to draw the conclusion that they have causal relationship. As a matter of fact, the population of one species highly depends on several factors, like the quantity of their prey and predators, besides temperature. To be specific, a lethal epidemic could decimate deer in the Arctic Circle, while it has nothing to do with global warming. Without taking such factors into consideration, the author draws the conclusion too hastily and presumptuously.
Finally, granted that decrease in population does result from global warming, the author naively accuses it of devastating the migration pattern adopted by arctic deer. As I have mentioned above, the survival of a species is highly dependent on many factors. Provided that global warming, with a significant increase of ambient carbon dioxide, has greatly acidified the ocean, it is likely that plants which need water to sustain their life would be threatened or even killed. Therefore, failure to investigate other possibilities renders author’s statement untenable.
To sum up, the author fails to provide substantial evidence proving his allegation regarding deer population and temperature. What’s more, he is unable to prove there is a causal relationship between them. If he could have present more accurate and specific data regarding deer population and temperature, as well as scrutinized another potential factors contributing to population change, his statement would likely be more persuasive.
這里我們用粗體突出了一部分具有舊GRE特點(diǎn)的語句，大家可以看出它們大多是直接批評原文的邏輯漏洞，直接指出原文的結(jié)論不可靠。在論述每個邏輯缺陷時，也只是談到了會導(dǎo)致原文結(jié)論不成立的反面情況和條件。
在新GRE中，這篇Argument后的instructions為：
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.
下面是這篇Argument保留原來的論證素材，按照新的要求改寫之后的文章：
In this argument, the author cites reports from local hunters as evidence for the decline of the arctic deer populations, and subsequently attributes this decline to global warming, which allegedly makes deer unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea.Although the argument seems plausible at first glance, a close scrutiny will reveal that additional evidence is necessary for an effective evaluation of its validity.
Firstly, the author asserts a decrease in the deer populations merely based on reports from local hunters. However, such reports may not serve as a convincing indicator, since the deer might have intentionally avoided direct contact with hunters in order to survive hunting. Therefore, more persuasive evidence must be presented for a better evaluation of the populations. For example, a scientific study surveying the entire area could offer much stronger evidence for the change in deer populations. If the results of the study show that the overall populations are indeed on the decline, it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it. On the other hand, if the results evidence constant or even increasing populations, the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless.
Secondly, specific evidence regarding the change of temperature in the arctic regions is also needed to evaluate the author’s reference of global warming. This is because the earth’s climate is an intricate system and the trend of global warming does not necessarily result in an increase in temperature and cause sea ice to melt in the local arctic regions of interest. If local temperature data illustrate a non-varying or even colder climate, the adoption of global warming to account for phenomena in these regions will be highly suspicious. On the contrary, local temperatures that manifest a climate change consistent with the general trend of global warming will help strengthen this point of reasoning in the argument.
Furthermore, even if we corroborate the decline in deer populations and acknowledge a warmer climate in the arctic regions, further evidence is still necessary for an evaluation of the author’s causal association of the decline in deer populations with the increased local temperatures. As a matter of fact, the populations of deer depend on more factors than climate alone, such as the quantity of their predators and epidemics. Consequently, it is of great significance to examine all the possible causes for population changes, and find out evidence for the roles they are playing. If evidence demonstrates that reasons other than increased temperatures are primarily responsible for the observed population decline, the purported link between this decline and climate change will be greatly weakened. Nevertheless, on condition that evidence is found to be able to testify the negligibility of all the other influences and rule out all the alternative explanations for the population decline, the causal relationship between the decrease and warmer climate, claimed in the argument, will be considerably strengthened.
Finally, granted that the deer populations do decline due to increased local temperatures associated with the global warming, concrete evidence still remains desirable to evaluate the author’s assertion that it is via disturbing the deer’s migration patterns that the warmer climate reduces the populations. As mentioned above, the survival of deer relies on numerous factors, many of which are likely to be affected by temperature, and hence evidence from investigation into all these temperature dependent factors has to be obtained. Provided that such evidence reveals, for instance, that the higher temperatures endanger plants the deer mainly feed on and that the population drop is a result of food shortage caused by increased temperatures but not inability to migrate, the conclusion of the argument will prove untenable. Conversely, evidence undoubtedly exhibiting that the warmer climate melts the sea ice and leads to the deer’s failure to follow the old-aged migration pattern and ultimately their massive death will be in strong support of the proposed reason for the drop of deer populations in the argument.
To sum up, evidence beyond what has been brought forward by the author is required for a legitimate evaluation of the reasoning and conclusion of the argument. Specifically, detailed and reliable evidence concerning the deer populations, the climate change in the arctic regions, as well as all the factors that are capable of affecting the deer populations, whether temperature dependent or not, will be helpful with evaluating the credibility of the argument.
大家可以明顯看出寫作角度的不同，我們來具體看一下要點(diǎn)是怎樣體現(xiàn)的：
(1)在特定evidence的基礎(chǔ)上評價原文，而不是直接說原文不靠譜。例如在第二段if the results evidence constant or even increasing populations, the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless，而不像舊GRE中那樣直接說with inadequate information offered by the author, it’s unclear whether the deer population has decreased or not。
(2)既論及反面evidence，也討論正面evidence。同樣舉第二段的例子，既談到某些evidence會使得it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it，也談到某些evidence會導(dǎo)致the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless。
(3)相信大家發(fā)現(xiàn)了，這樣的分析會顯著增加文章的長度(486→734詞)，這是由于我們加入了evidence支持作者claim的可能性和由此帶來的影響。在實(shí)際的考試中可能會時間不夠，我們的建議是減少分析的點(diǎn)(例如只分析最重要的或漏洞最明顯的三個)，以保證每一段的深度和分量。
還有一點(diǎn)，大家可以注意到我們在evaluate原文的時候盡量具體，例如在第二段里我們說it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it，而不是泛泛地說the argument will be strengthened。我們覺得這樣具體化的論斷更嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)也更有說服力。
通過這個例子的比對，是不是覺得“evaluate類”Argument也不難寫呢?只要熟悉一下這類寫作套路，那么準(zhǔn)備好的素材都還可以使用，找出的邏輯錯誤都可以改造成evaluate角度。相信大家在練習(xí)幾次之后就能適應(yīng)這類新GRE的要求。
在結(jié)束本文之前，我們還想指出我們在改作文時常遇到的一個小錯誤和一個邏輯漏洞。首先，evidence做名詞的時候幾乎總是不可數(shù)，所以大家不要加s或者a/an。其次，建議大家不要采用questions to be answered to strengthen the argument或者evidence needed to strengthen the argument這類說法， 因?yàn)椤盎卮饐栴}”、“提出證據(jù)”的行為不能起到strengthen the argument的作用，只有某些特定的回答和證據(jù)才能夠strengthen the argument，而某些回答和證據(jù)可能weaken the argument，同時回答問題、提出證據(jù)僅僅為了評價(evaluate)，是一個中性目的，因此我們建議改寫成to evaluate the argument等。