Gre寫(xiě)作是美國(guó)所有作文考試中時(shí)刻最長(zhǎng)而質(zhì)量要求最高的一類作文考試，而在短期內(nèi)提高gre寫(xiě)作能力不是一天兩天可以完成額，所以我們?cè)趥淇?011新gre寫(xiě)作時(shí)必然要對(duì)問(wèn)題問(wèn)題深切的剖析，體味以下優(yōu)異范文的文章結(jié)構(gòu)，以提高新gre寫(xiě)作的整體分?jǐn)?shù)。
第四篇文章
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.
Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.
But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.
Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
原題邏輯順序：6月前F提高限速==〉F事故升高==〉E沒(méi)提高限速反而事故略減少==〉F要想減少事故就不能提高限速
6分：
The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. 這一句話指出原文存在邏輯問(wèn)題，這里用的語(yǔ)言很簡(jiǎn)單。而不是北美范文中有時(shí)堆徹了一堆放之四海皆為準(zhǔn)的無(wú)關(guān)痛癢的話。很明顯，官方的意思是說(shuō)這樣的客套話一定要說(shuō)，但是一定要用最簡(jiǎn)潔的形式來(lái)說(shuō)，而同時(shí)那些具體問(wèn)題具體分析性的語(yǔ)言則要詳細(xì)的說(shuō)明白，說(shuō)清楚。 By ** a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.這個(gè)開(kāi)頭真的非常巧，因?yàn)樗靡痪湓掃_(dá)到了兩句話的效果，即同時(shí)復(fù)述題目并指出問(wèn)題在哪，而沒(méi)有像北美一樣說(shuō)結(jié)論是什么證據(jù)是什么證據(jù)再說(shuō)不能支持結(jié)論。設(shè)想一下如果我們是考官的話看到這樣的一個(gè)開(kāi)頭得到了一個(gè)什么信息呢：此考生已經(jīng)完全讀懂題目了，并且他對(duì)原文的邏輯順序也已經(jīng)掌握了。深一點(diǎn)層次來(lái)說(shuō)：aw考試考得是我們的分析能力，這是重點(diǎn)。雖然官方說(shuō)明也曾經(jīng)強(qiáng)調(diào)理解原文很重要，但是終歸理解能力并不是考試的重點(diǎn)。所以比較好的做法是：分析題目的脈絡(luò)，寫(xiě)出分析性的概括。這里沒(méi)有必要單獨(dú)再?gòu)?fù)述題目了因?yàn)樵诜治鲋幸呀?jīng)暗含了原文的信息。這里還有一點(diǎn)值得注意：為什么要在第二句話的最前面用comparison這個(gè)詞呢，這是有講究的!原文的論證核心就是比較，而這里將此詞提到最前面一是說(shuō)這是原文的邏輯關(guān)聯(lián)，二是暗示我下面要做的就是圍繞著此比較而進(jìn)行的。有點(diǎn)類似于主題句的主干提前。這個(gè)詞真的是令人發(fā)指的重要，看到后面你就知道了
However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. 這一段是質(zhì)疑一個(gè)假設(shè)的前提。從前面的幾個(gè)范文的分析我們可以看出來(lái)，正文body首段質(zhì)疑的都是作者讓步的前提，那么這里的讓步在哪里呢，開(kāi)頭段并沒(méi)有提到阿。確實(shí)沒(méi)有在第一段提到讓步。但是別著急，在最后一段的第一句，出現(xiàn)了讓步(即since后面的兩點(diǎn)理由)，這不就又對(duì)應(yīng)上了嗎!讓步說(shuō)F這些市民可能是因?yàn)樽约旱睦婊蛘弑Ｗo(hù)自己的安全才建議取消限速的。那么這里的前提就是是F因?yàn)橄匏俨攀故鹿试黾拥?。這一段將這個(gè)前提狠狠的質(zhì)疑了一番。論證方法為列舉他因。Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. 列舉了三點(diǎn)他因，有兩點(diǎn)值得注意：一是這里作者前兩點(diǎn)都沒(méi)有詳細(xì)展開(kāi)，但這是不是意味著對(duì)于比較常識(shí)性的例子不用展開(kāi)呢，不是!同志們，展開(kāi)并不只有三段論式展開(kāi)才是展開(kāi)，誰(shuí)說(shuō)這里沒(méi)有展開(kāi)呢?作者實(shí)際上已經(jīng)通過(guò)定語(yǔ)同位語(yǔ)進(jìn)行展開(kāi)了!!比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相補(bǔ)充阿，所以說(shuō)我們?cè)诮o出常識(shí)性的例子時(shí)，要注意通過(guò)修飾語(yǔ)的方式進(jìn)行暗中的展開(kāi)。判斷我們證明的是否嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)是否充足，可以這樣：完全只是用我們提供的信息來(lái)推，能不能推出最后的結(jié)果。而最后一點(diǎn)展開(kāi)的則較為充分，這里看來(lái)是因?yàn)樽詈笠稽c(diǎn)有點(diǎn)過(guò)于寬泛，必須要進(jìn)行詳細(xì)具體解釋才行。更深一層次的來(lái)說(shuō)作者對(duì)于例子的安排也是有詳有略，給人錯(cuò)落有致的感覺(jué)，美。另外一點(diǎn)值得注意的就是，這三個(gè)論證中無(wú)一例外的都進(jìn)行了EF的比較，照應(yīng)了開(kāi)頭給出的comparison這個(gè)詞，作者兌現(xiàn)了自己在開(kāi)頭的暗示。 It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. 這里作者的論證向前進(jìn)了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不夠的，我們心里一定要想著提出他因是干什么的。這里指出了他因究竟如何來(lái)利用，使得證明原文。即應(yīng)該多考慮一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。 Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.這和上一句是相照應(yīng)的，屬于對(duì)比性的論證，剛才說(shuō)F有了他因所以不是限速能解決，這里有說(shuō)了E也許也是他因才使得情況稍好。整個(gè)段落是多么整齊的對(duì)仗阿!EF兩地的對(duì)比無(wú)處不在，而又那么的工整!作者在開(kāi)頭第二句話的Comparison一詞真的是統(tǒng)領(lǐng)全文的阿!正所謂指哪打哪。
A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.從這一段開(kāi)始攻擊原文邏輯鏈。本段有四個(gè)分論點(diǎn)，本來(lái)應(yīng)該寫(xiě)四段的。(至于為什么沒(méi)有寫(xiě)三段，我想是因?yàn)閍wintro中說(shuō)我們可以隨意的選擇段落的數(shù)量，并不會(huì)影響最后的結(jié)果。但是，這樣的話前提是閱卷人有足夠的耐心。所以為了保險(xiǎn)起見(jiàn)，讓人看著更為清楚些，我還是建議大家分開(kāi)寫(xiě))這里第一個(gè)攻擊的就是6個(gè)月時(shí)間夠不夠。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 這一句話的目的在于復(fù)述原文條件，立起靶子。從這里開(kāi)始攻擊第二點(diǎn)，即天氣的影響。 This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. 對(duì)E的論證采用的是經(jīng)典三段論，即天氣差==〉人不出去==〉事故少。However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. 再次進(jìn)行了EF對(duì)比，通過(guò)coerced后面的從句進(jìn)行推演，屬于小展開(kāi)。也足夠充分。 Again, the demographics of the population are important. 這里對(duì)邏輯鏈的第三點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了攻擊。即人口數(shù)量的問(wèn)題。 It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 先說(shuō)E的人可能少。論證方法是加條件后討論。 Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 再說(shuō)F的人可能多。論證方法同要是加條件后討論。 Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻擊邏輯鏈的第四點(diǎn)，即人們活動(dòng)的時(shí)間。(品味一下本段四個(gè)邏輯錯(cuò)誤的安排順序，時(shí)間==)天氣==)人數(shù)==〉人的活動(dòng)，看似無(wú)關(guān)，還是很有講究的阿，這不正是從外在因素到內(nèi)在因素嗎)it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.第四點(diǎn)的論證同樣是采用了兩者的對(duì)比?？磥?lái)作者真是說(shuō)到做到阿，竟然沒(méi)有一次論證沒(méi)有對(duì)比的!!論證方法為加條件后討論。
Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原來(lái)讓步在這呢!其實(shí)作者心里一直有數(shù)，只是沒(méi)寫(xiě)出來(lái)。但是在正文body的第一段已經(jīng)就其假設(shè)進(jìn)行了討論。我想我們不是作者這樣的牛人，這樣的讓步還是很有必要在第一段體現(xiàn)出來(lái)的。 However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.最后提出了建議。我們看到作者對(duì)于文章的立意把握得很好，要是換我們來(lái)寫(xiě)，可能會(huì)寫(xiě)限速怎么不好啊。而這文章中限速不管怎么說(shuō)總是有好的一面，只是常識(shí)!所以作者的立意為：不是說(shuō)限速不好，而是說(shuō)要考慮全。引申一下，我們一定要對(duì)文章的立意有個(gè)把握。文章無(wú)非就三種立意，一種是好的(就像這樣的為了安全的(比如skate范文))，一種就是不好不壞的(就像為了利益的為了利潤(rùn)(什么掙錢(qián)多啊))，一種是不好的(就像有個(gè)說(shuō)不應(yīng)該取消安全帶規(guī)定，還有詆毀某人的)。這三種立意的寫(xiě)法可是完全不同的阿!對(duì)于第一種，切記要委婉!最好就是避而不談，而說(shuō)應(yīng)該考慮更全面。對(duì)于后面兩種，嘿嘿，就得狠點(diǎn)了，尤其是最后一種，就是譴責(zé)。后面的文章我會(huì)給出分析?？荚囉脮?shū)
COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical."
It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis.
Alternatives mentioned are that
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.
Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.
For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.
The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.
This is an impressive 6 paper.
感謝您閱讀《argument全部官方范文分析(6) 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
第四篇文章
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.
Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.
But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.
Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
原題邏輯順序：6月前F提高限速==〉F事故升高==〉E沒(méi)提高限速反而事故略減少==〉F要想減少事故就不能提高限速
6分：
The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. 這一句話指出原文存在邏輯問(wèn)題，這里用的語(yǔ)言很簡(jiǎn)單。而不是北美范文中有時(shí)堆徹了一堆放之四海皆為準(zhǔn)的無(wú)關(guān)痛癢的話。很明顯，官方的意思是說(shuō)這樣的客套話一定要說(shuō)，但是一定要用最簡(jiǎn)潔的形式來(lái)說(shuō)，而同時(shí)那些具體問(wèn)題具體分析性的語(yǔ)言則要詳細(xì)的說(shuō)明白，說(shuō)清楚。 By ** a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.這個(gè)開(kāi)頭真的非常巧，因?yàn)樗靡痪湓掃_(dá)到了兩句話的效果，即同時(shí)復(fù)述題目并指出問(wèn)題在哪，而沒(méi)有像北美一樣說(shuō)結(jié)論是什么證據(jù)是什么證據(jù)再說(shuō)不能支持結(jié)論。設(shè)想一下如果我們是考官的話看到這樣的一個(gè)開(kāi)頭得到了一個(gè)什么信息呢：此考生已經(jīng)完全讀懂題目了，并且他對(duì)原文的邏輯順序也已經(jīng)掌握了。深一點(diǎn)層次來(lái)說(shuō)：aw考試考得是我們的分析能力，這是重點(diǎn)。雖然官方說(shuō)明也曾經(jīng)強(qiáng)調(diào)理解原文很重要，但是終歸理解能力并不是考試的重點(diǎn)。所以比較好的做法是：分析題目的脈絡(luò)，寫(xiě)出分析性的概括。這里沒(méi)有必要單獨(dú)再?gòu)?fù)述題目了因?yàn)樵诜治鲋幸呀?jīng)暗含了原文的信息。這里還有一點(diǎn)值得注意：為什么要在第二句話的最前面用comparison這個(gè)詞呢，這是有講究的!原文的論證核心就是比較，而這里將此詞提到最前面一是說(shuō)這是原文的邏輯關(guān)聯(lián)，二是暗示我下面要做的就是圍繞著此比較而進(jìn)行的。有點(diǎn)類似于主題句的主干提前。這個(gè)詞真的是令人發(fā)指的重要，看到后面你就知道了
However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. 這一段是質(zhì)疑一個(gè)假設(shè)的前提。從前面的幾個(gè)范文的分析我們可以看出來(lái)，正文body首段質(zhì)疑的都是作者讓步的前提，那么這里的讓步在哪里呢，開(kāi)頭段并沒(méi)有提到阿。確實(shí)沒(méi)有在第一段提到讓步。但是別著急，在最后一段的第一句，出現(xiàn)了讓步(即since后面的兩點(diǎn)理由)，這不就又對(duì)應(yīng)上了嗎!讓步說(shuō)F這些市民可能是因?yàn)樽约旱睦婊蛘弑Ｗo(hù)自己的安全才建議取消限速的。那么這里的前提就是是F因?yàn)橄匏俨攀故鹿试黾拥?。這一段將這個(gè)前提狠狠的質(zhì)疑了一番。論證方法為列舉他因。Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. 列舉了三點(diǎn)他因，有兩點(diǎn)值得注意：一是這里作者前兩點(diǎn)都沒(méi)有詳細(xì)展開(kāi)，但這是不是意味著對(duì)于比較常識(shí)性的例子不用展開(kāi)呢，不是!同志們，展開(kāi)并不只有三段論式展開(kāi)才是展開(kāi)，誰(shuí)說(shuō)這里沒(méi)有展開(kāi)呢?作者實(shí)際上已經(jīng)通過(guò)定語(yǔ)同位語(yǔ)進(jìn)行展開(kāi)了!!比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相補(bǔ)充阿，所以說(shuō)我們?cè)诮o出常識(shí)性的例子時(shí)，要注意通過(guò)修飾語(yǔ)的方式進(jìn)行暗中的展開(kāi)。判斷我們證明的是否嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)是否充足，可以這樣：完全只是用我們提供的信息來(lái)推，能不能推出最后的結(jié)果。而最后一點(diǎn)展開(kāi)的則較為充分，這里看來(lái)是因?yàn)樽詈笠稽c(diǎn)有點(diǎn)過(guò)于寬泛，必須要進(jìn)行詳細(xì)具體解釋才行。更深一層次的來(lái)說(shuō)作者對(duì)于例子的安排也是有詳有略，給人錯(cuò)落有致的感覺(jué)，美。另外一點(diǎn)值得注意的就是，這三個(gè)論證中無(wú)一例外的都進(jìn)行了EF的比較，照應(yīng)了開(kāi)頭給出的comparison這個(gè)詞，作者兌現(xiàn)了自己在開(kāi)頭的暗示。 It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. 這里作者的論證向前進(jìn)了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不夠的，我們心里一定要想著提出他因是干什么的。這里指出了他因究竟如何來(lái)利用，使得證明原文。即應(yīng)該多考慮一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。 Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.這和上一句是相照應(yīng)的，屬于對(duì)比性的論證，剛才說(shuō)F有了他因所以不是限速能解決，這里有說(shuō)了E也許也是他因才使得情況稍好。整個(gè)段落是多么整齊的對(duì)仗阿!EF兩地的對(duì)比無(wú)處不在，而又那么的工整!作者在開(kāi)頭第二句話的Comparison一詞真的是統(tǒng)領(lǐng)全文的阿!正所謂指哪打哪。
A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.從這一段開(kāi)始攻擊原文邏輯鏈。本段有四個(gè)分論點(diǎn)，本來(lái)應(yīng)該寫(xiě)四段的。(至于為什么沒(méi)有寫(xiě)三段，我想是因?yàn)閍wintro中說(shuō)我們可以隨意的選擇段落的數(shù)量，并不會(huì)影響最后的結(jié)果。但是，這樣的話前提是閱卷人有足夠的耐心。所以為了保險(xiǎn)起見(jiàn)，讓人看著更為清楚些，我還是建議大家分開(kāi)寫(xiě))這里第一個(gè)攻擊的就是6個(gè)月時(shí)間夠不夠。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 這一句話的目的在于復(fù)述原文條件，立起靶子。從這里開(kāi)始攻擊第二點(diǎn)，即天氣的影響。 This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. 對(duì)E的論證采用的是經(jīng)典三段論，即天氣差==〉人不出去==〉事故少。However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. 再次進(jìn)行了EF對(duì)比，通過(guò)coerced后面的從句進(jìn)行推演，屬于小展開(kāi)。也足夠充分。 Again, the demographics of the population are important. 這里對(duì)邏輯鏈的第三點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了攻擊。即人口數(shù)量的問(wèn)題。 It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 先說(shuō)E的人可能少。論證方法是加條件后討論。 Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 再說(shuō)F的人可能多。論證方法同要是加條件后討論。 Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻擊邏輯鏈的第四點(diǎn)，即人們活動(dòng)的時(shí)間。(品味一下本段四個(gè)邏輯錯(cuò)誤的安排順序，時(shí)間==)天氣==)人數(shù)==〉人的活動(dòng)，看似無(wú)關(guān)，還是很有講究的阿，這不正是從外在因素到內(nèi)在因素嗎)it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.第四點(diǎn)的論證同樣是采用了兩者的對(duì)比?？磥?lái)作者真是說(shuō)到做到阿，竟然沒(méi)有一次論證沒(méi)有對(duì)比的!!論證方法為加條件后討論。
Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原來(lái)讓步在這呢!其實(shí)作者心里一直有數(shù)，只是沒(méi)寫(xiě)出來(lái)。但是在正文body的第一段已經(jīng)就其假設(shè)進(jìn)行了討論。我想我們不是作者這樣的牛人，這樣的讓步還是很有必要在第一段體現(xiàn)出來(lái)的。 However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.最后提出了建議。我們看到作者對(duì)于文章的立意把握得很好，要是換我們來(lái)寫(xiě)，可能會(huì)寫(xiě)限速怎么不好啊。而這文章中限速不管怎么說(shuō)總是有好的一面，只是常識(shí)!所以作者的立意為：不是說(shuō)限速不好，而是說(shuō)要考慮全。引申一下，我們一定要對(duì)文章的立意有個(gè)把握。文章無(wú)非就三種立意，一種是好的(就像這樣的為了安全的(比如skate范文))，一種就是不好不壞的(就像為了利益的為了利潤(rùn)(什么掙錢(qián)多啊))，一種是不好的(就像有個(gè)說(shuō)不應(yīng)該取消安全帶規(guī)定，還有詆毀某人的)。這三種立意的寫(xiě)法可是完全不同的阿!對(duì)于第一種，切記要委婉!最好就是避而不談，而說(shuō)應(yīng)該考慮更全面。對(duì)于后面兩種，嘿嘿，就得狠點(diǎn)了，尤其是最后一種，就是譴責(zé)。后面的文章我會(huì)給出分析?？荚囉脮?shū)
COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical."
It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis.
Alternatives mentioned are that
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.
Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.
For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.
The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.
This is an impressive 6 paper.
感謝您閱讀《argument全部官方范文分析(6) 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。