2.ARGUMENT結(jié)構(gòu)性指導(dǎo)
ARGUMENT的結(jié)構(gòu)性比較固定，易于掌握，用過新東方書的考生出手都能寫出個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的“經(jīng)典5段(4段)式”，可以說這種模式是完全可以采用，同時也是的，的。相比較其余什么“老管寫作模式”，“思馬得模板作文”，這種模式是上乘的首選，而且條理清晰，可讀性好，容易方便閱卷人給分。這里由于從網(wǎng)上海量作文習(xí)作看來，幾乎所有考生
都對ARGUMENT的這種寫作模式相當(dāng)熟悉，因此僅對其中出現(xiàn)的普遍問題強調(diào)和糾正一下：
(1)開頭和結(jié)尾：由于ARGUMENT時間的緊迫性，開頭和結(jié)尾應(yīng)該盡量簡短而明確，其篇幅總量應(yīng)不超過正文部分的1/3。很多考生一上來就花了5，6分鐘把題干中的論據(jù)結(jié)論用復(fù)雜的長句子轉(zhuǎn)述，在象征性地于結(jié)尾來一句諸如“經(jīng)過我反復(fù)檢查，其中論據(jù)模糊，邏輯錯誤橫生”之類的套話。然后在正文又要分條攻擊闡述。這是極不科學(xué)的“湊字?jǐn)?shù)”的模式，相信老外閱卷人一天看個百來篇的這類文章，很容易產(chǎn)生“惡意”和“過敏”，一怒之下有種判為“類同卷”的沖動。正確的做法永遠(yuǎn)只有，用1-2句話明明白白告訴閱卷人基本的結(jié)論和你的態(tài)度，作到簡短而有力，讓閱卷人一眼就看到你的觀點，并且知道你已經(jīng)讀懂題目并且作了基本的準(zhǔn)確回應(yīng)。羅列證據(jù)是留給正文的事。另外對于結(jié)尾，不要總是要告戒出題者要如何如何加強自己的論證，我們往往可以反其道而行，用上點“諷刺”，“黑色幽默”等手法讓枯燥的文章在末尾展示出良好的可讀性，博得閱卷人的“好感”。
(2)正文：盡管這是邏輯作文，題干給的像以前的邏輯單題，但是她是一種作文，不是客觀題。大量的使用刻板的邏輯句式對于文章的生動性“百害而無一利”。很多考生背會了什么“孫氏邏輯句法”就在正文處大打出手，用些看上去極能唬人的分析句式，像邏輯專業(yè)出身的人那樣，左一句“the arguer commits a fallacy of "false analogy",右一句"the arguer rests his conclusion on the classic logic fallacy of“post hoc, ergo propter hoc".連拉丁文都用上了，你說老美做何感想。按中國人的話說，叫“掉書袋”，當(dāng)諸位考生還在自我為這種呆板的句式樂此不疲的時候，你是否留意過GRE作文在你的手下是不是有些散發(fā)出像死尸一樣的蒼白來。作文者，就是要以“能說明問題”為先，而不是在這里“裝神弄鬼”，盡管邏輯方面的論證我們需要邏輯知識的支撐，但是我們要作好的是只是“借題發(fā)揮”，“點到即止”。正確的做法應(yīng)該是掌握住“錯誤”，揪住對方的小辮，然后適當(dāng)搭配著證據(jù)的羅列稱述，合理選用邏輯句式，一說明問題立刻回來，盡量用例證不要去做邏輯上的因果論證。具體請參看對比以下范文：
4.The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site. "Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."
(病歷文)
In this argument, the arguer recommends us to use Adams, one of the two leading real estate firms in our town, to sell our homes if you want to instead of Fitch, the other leading one. To justify his conclusion, the arguer provides the clear evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast to the number 25 of Fitch, and even many of which are only part-time. In addition, he cited the fresh statistics of revenues of both Adams and Fitch, which respectively are $168,000 and $144,000. To make it more conceivable, the arguer even lists out a self-experienced case to exhibit the superior sell speed of Adams to Fitch. Although all the evidences above seem reasonable, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.
In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes Adams' service is better than Fitch's with the assumption that more agents, more satisfaction. The 40 agents in Adams might be poorly trained and unqualified with an extremely low work efficiency, thus enlarging the number of the agents is the only feasible compensation. While Fitch's 25 agents may be well trained and be rich in experience, although many of them work only part-time, under the present work condition it is enough. And also the quality of the service can't be oversimplified to only a factor of the number of employees, which, in our common sense, has no necessary correlation. It is some other things should be taken into consideration, such as social reputation, the feedbacks of customers and the company's culture and spiritual, to avoid making the assertion too unwarranted.
In the second place, the statistics offered by the arguer can't elucidate anything. It seems true that Adams' achievement is greater than Fitch's through the comparison of revenues, but the data itself is too vague to be informative. Taking into account the service charge, which can't be omitted in this case, we absolutely have adequate reasons to doubt the charge from Adams is far larger than Fitch, which eventually leads to such a gap. Another possibility of the result is contributing to the types of house they are entrusted to sell, since no evidence showed that Adams can afford to sell the lower-price estates while Fitch can assume the opposite ones, thus the phenomenon arises.
Last but not least, in short of legitimacy is that Fitch really sells homes slower than Adams does. According to the arguer's narrative, he entrusted his home to Fitch ten years ago when the balance of offer-request heavily outweighed the left side and Fitch selling it in more than four months is nothing but a miracle. Adams, instead, sold his another home in one month last year during which the request for house might be booming as a result of influx of the foreign immigrants. Under this circumstance, Adams' success, however, is merely ordinary. Besides, the two houses sold out no doubt have natural differences, which tightly related to the smooth process of selling, such as location, structure, areas, and materials. The arguer thus makes so hasty a generalization regardless of these crucial points.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned in lack of some indispensable evidence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would demonstrate that the superior quality of Adams' agents and the relatively lower charge comparable to Fitch's. Additionally, more details should be evinced, concerning the actual estate situation in those periods of time and fundamental instructions of the two sold houses, to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities. (587 words)
點評：該范文充斥著上面討論的各種毛病，僅開頭就131字，加上結(jié)尾超過200字，已經(jīng)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過正文1/3篇幅，是不可取的。許多模式句型充斥，結(jié)尾老套，不值得學(xué)習(xí)借鑒。另外很多考生關(guān)心這樣一來字?jǐn)?shù)就不合“要求”。ETS從來沒有對作文字?jǐn)?shù)有要求，盡管網(wǎng)上流行說法認(rèn)為閱卷者將字?jǐn)?shù)列為打分項目之一，但是在ETS公布的評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中是覓不著蹤跡的，況且ETS極講究科學(xué)性，不會以貌取人，但求“以理服人”，這
從他考試的設(shè)計可以看出來。所以正常的ARGUMENT作文可以在“350——500”字之間，而ISSUE可在“450——600”之間，這是按正常打字速度與思維速度指定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。很多網(wǎng)上作文包括我這里的某些范文都有遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過500，600字的，很少是在真正全封閉作業(yè)下，45分鐘或30分鐘內(nèi)完成的，在考試時間內(nèi)，按上述標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的字?jǐn)?shù)作文拿“滿分”是綽綽有余的，事實說明一切，我的諸多戰(zhàn)友，包括前面提及的Violet，從來都是靠“5步一殺”，“3步一槍”，(500字左右ISSUE，300字左右ARGUMENT)，在4，6級詞匯范圍內(nèi)穩(wěn)拿5分——6分，可見一斑。不相信的考生應(yīng)該自己在PP2、PP3的作文?？贾杏H身體驗，我會在最后推薦大家一個行之有效的快速練習(xí)作文速度和質(zhì)量“槍手作文速成訓(xùn)練法”，我們這一輩稱為“替身殺手”的人都是這樣練出來的。
17. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ--which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks--has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
(范文)
The argument is not well reasoned at all, and it might be wise for Walnut Grove's town council to turn to ABC Disposal.
To begin with, despite EZ's weekly working frequency is as twice as ABC's, yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the "advantage" is necessary and fictional. For instance, if the town's garbage amount is under a particularly lower scale, which merely reaches the quantity of once disposal from ABC and hence the relatively once more from EZ is just a futile plethora. Also, even if twice disposal is applicable, it still deserves to doubt whether most citizens would like usual to choose EZ when taking into account the price of its service has been increased by $500 a month. Most citizens is highly possible to pick up a company that can offer best services while calling for relatively little money, for saving the extra $500, which to some extent is dispensable, I think, most citizens can cope with some easily handled trash with their own methods instead of singly relying on the disposal company.
And another crucial point I cast great discretion on is whether the survey made last year is the persuasive reflection of the whole citizen's actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the survey's sampling size and accordingly the ultimate respondents echoing the questions. Visualize the citizens of Walnut town are no less than 500 thousands, but ironically only the 5 hundred ones have the fortune to be asked the question and in the end the real available records making some senses are less than the 10% of the interviewers, namely the upper limit is only 50 people. Let alone whether these answers have the widely applicable representative, just judging about the number of respondents we can have justifiable rights to disregard the validity of this survey.
Almost to forget to point out, that the freshly ordered 20 trucks of EZ cannot add another ponderous stake onto the balance, on the contrary, it might exacerbate the impressions of EZ in people's mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the company's property, and to take this disburse back the company must put some additional measures for compensation, thereby increasing the fees can lead the citizens to obtain the most strong conviction of loading the economic debt onto their shoulders, which finally ruins the tiny fantasy prone to the EZ.
So the arguer's recommendation is just nothing but a cheap propaganda to throw to the vast residents a deceptive illusion. I believe, in general, any one having look through these vulgar tricks full of vague information and implicit causal claims like me would be likely to accept the town council's decision, after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests. (458 words)
點評：這篇文章徹底糾正了上述病歷文的缺點，開頭簡短有力，準(zhǔn)確回應(yīng)，中間正文論述過度自然，值得借鑒，另外結(jié)尾也擺脫了原先的“改錯建議”，用“諷刺”的口吻深化了主題。大家一定要重視這個問題，因為這實在是個“吃力不討好”的事，而且這樣的人還真不少，下面再看一例來自滿分網(wǎng)的習(xí)作，將這種“毛病”升華到了極至。
145.A new study collected data that shows that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. It is well known that many people who snore also stop breathing frequently during the night for a few seconds, a condition called sleep apnea. The interruption of breathing wakes the person—often so briefly that the waking goes unnoticed--and can leave the person too tired during the day to exercise. Anyone who snores, therefore, should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more.
(病歷文)
In this argument, the arguer make a proposal that anyone who snores should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more. In order to prove his claims, a new study collected data has been quoted that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. in addition, the arguer also shows a common sense to support the conclusion, which says that sleep apnea, a condition caused by snore, can wakes the sleeping person often and leave him too tired to exercise during the day.
The explanation of the conclusion sounds quite plausible at the first glance, but after pondering deeply upon the matter, we may find that the arguer fails to build up a causal relationship between the sentific study and the the conclusion as presented above, furthermore, this argument also suffers from critical logical confusion, How can the person who is too tired to exercise join even more aerobic activities during the day? To reveal the flaws of the argument more clearly, let us detail the examination.
To begin with, one major assumption in short of legitimacy is the relationship claimsed between the propensity of weight-gaining among the snores and the method to handle this problem, which is simply described as "eating less". However, why those people who snore are more likely to gain weight still remain unknown, how can the arguer gratuitously give the recommendation that the anyone who snores should try to eat less? there may be other ways to give the explanation of this problem, the most persuasive one is that the fat might cause by the hormone secreted by a kind of glands. When people are snoring, means, under the condition called sleep apnea, the amount of hormone being secreted may exceed or less than, the normal one, which keeps the metabolism speed of the human body. Therefore, it is reasonable to imagine that the problem would even get worse after adopting the arger's suggestion that anyone who snores should eat less than the average person.
In addition, the arguer's conclusion that more excercises should be taken by the those who snore is seriously undermined by the common sense given in the argument, which points out the sleep apnea caused by snore results in the tiredness of the snorer during the day. Can such a tired person take a lot of exercisers besides his work or study? the answer is obviously seem. anyone who has basic logical-deducing ability would see the critical flaw in the argument.
In sum, unless the reslut of a further scientific study can demonstrate that the weight-gaining propensity among the snorers is caused by lacking of excercise and can be solved by eating less, the arguer's conclusion about this medical issue is unfounded.(463 words)
評注：開頭兩段作者什么都沒談，就歸納了論據(jù)結(jié)論用了一段耗去100多字，居然還不過癮，又獨劈一段就為了說明它有問題，又是幾十字，加上結(jié)尾，非主體共耗去200多字，接近全文一半，這樣的謀篇布局實在讓人“心寒”?？梢娮髡邲]有絲毫寫作“結(jié)構(gòu)性”的知識，完全憑借自己的“一相情愿”在“抖包袱”。而下面的范文盡管開頭也作了概括，但是“點到即止”，將文章的中心全部撲在批駁論證上，并且“主次分明”，從而保證了良好的“結(jié)構(gòu)協(xié)調(diào)性”，請讀者品品。
(范文)
The argument astonishingly deduces a conclusion of the easiness to get fatter for the particular group of people who snore at sleep, and accordingly recommends eating less and strengthening the intense of exercises to avoid such trend. While the arguer established his demonstration on the tenable basis of a well-known discovery accepted by public, this argument, however, seems to me a wholly ramshackle one needed to scrutiny.
To begin with, what I cannot make clear since now is the leap from the mere fact of lacking exercise to the aptness for gaining weight, which sounds no necessary cause-and-effect relationship between them. It might be true of the evidence the arguer takes out to show that sleep apnea can interrupt the normal sleeping tempo and hence results the over exhaustion at diurnal work, which obliquely influence the exercises necessarily for these people. The extent of the arguer's inference can only reach this level, to further exploit the aftermath concerning the putting on weight still waits for more information, such as the authoritative report proving such potential nexus, or otherwise, the arguer is only resting the assertion on a gratuitous assumption.
Another obvious cynosure we facilely notice is the recommendation of eating less to relieve the inevitable current for weight growing, which is more unsubstantial. In the whole article, the arguer's claim range only spread to the layer of lacking exercises, referring to the habits of diets is a sudden idea out of any sign predicted, thus acts the role of invalid deduction. Also, the arguer presumptuously holds the conviction of "any" person who snores, ought to take the measure for stint eating, which works against commonsensical knowledge of treating different people by choosing different remedies, at all no two individuals are totally equivalent. Once escaping the condition of eluding such confusion, we are able to, too, recognize the suggestion of recommending those people's joining more exercises are, on the contrary, counterproductive. Even if the prerequisites of people's weight problem actually stems from this very case of fatigue, then more activities mean more fatigue at daily time enjoyed by them, and the circulation undeniably switches to the opposite side.
To sum up, starting from the ridiculous basement to the final fallacious recommendation, the arguer cursorily treat the gross deduction process, and add additional vulnerable announcement in the brittle body of the argument, which ultimately results the further discretion directly leads to its destiny of rebuff. (403 words)
ARGUMENT的結(jié)構(gòu)性比較固定，易于掌握，用過新東方書的考生出手都能寫出個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的“經(jīng)典5段(4段)式”，可以說這種模式是完全可以采用，同時也是的，的。相比較其余什么“老管寫作模式”，“思馬得模板作文”，這種模式是上乘的首選，而且條理清晰，可讀性好，容易方便閱卷人給分。這里由于從網(wǎng)上海量作文習(xí)作看來，幾乎所有考生
都對ARGUMENT的這種寫作模式相當(dāng)熟悉，因此僅對其中出現(xiàn)的普遍問題強調(diào)和糾正一下：
(1)開頭和結(jié)尾：由于ARGUMENT時間的緊迫性，開頭和結(jié)尾應(yīng)該盡量簡短而明確，其篇幅總量應(yīng)不超過正文部分的1/3。很多考生一上來就花了5，6分鐘把題干中的論據(jù)結(jié)論用復(fù)雜的長句子轉(zhuǎn)述，在象征性地于結(jié)尾來一句諸如“經(jīng)過我反復(fù)檢查，其中論據(jù)模糊，邏輯錯誤橫生”之類的套話。然后在正文又要分條攻擊闡述。這是極不科學(xué)的“湊字?jǐn)?shù)”的模式，相信老外閱卷人一天看個百來篇的這類文章，很容易產(chǎn)生“惡意”和“過敏”，一怒之下有種判為“類同卷”的沖動。正確的做法永遠(yuǎn)只有，用1-2句話明明白白告訴閱卷人基本的結(jié)論和你的態(tài)度，作到簡短而有力，讓閱卷人一眼就看到你的觀點，并且知道你已經(jīng)讀懂題目并且作了基本的準(zhǔn)確回應(yīng)。羅列證據(jù)是留給正文的事。另外對于結(jié)尾，不要總是要告戒出題者要如何如何加強自己的論證，我們往往可以反其道而行，用上點“諷刺”，“黑色幽默”等手法讓枯燥的文章在末尾展示出良好的可讀性，博得閱卷人的“好感”。
(2)正文：盡管這是邏輯作文，題干給的像以前的邏輯單題，但是她是一種作文，不是客觀題。大量的使用刻板的邏輯句式對于文章的生動性“百害而無一利”。很多考生背會了什么“孫氏邏輯句法”就在正文處大打出手，用些看上去極能唬人的分析句式，像邏輯專業(yè)出身的人那樣，左一句“the arguer commits a fallacy of "false analogy",右一句"the arguer rests his conclusion on the classic logic fallacy of“post hoc, ergo propter hoc".連拉丁文都用上了，你說老美做何感想。按中國人的話說，叫“掉書袋”，當(dāng)諸位考生還在自我為這種呆板的句式樂此不疲的時候，你是否留意過GRE作文在你的手下是不是有些散發(fā)出像死尸一樣的蒼白來。作文者，就是要以“能說明問題”為先，而不是在這里“裝神弄鬼”，盡管邏輯方面的論證我們需要邏輯知識的支撐，但是我們要作好的是只是“借題發(fā)揮”，“點到即止”。正確的做法應(yīng)該是掌握住“錯誤”，揪住對方的小辮，然后適當(dāng)搭配著證據(jù)的羅列稱述，合理選用邏輯句式，一說明問題立刻回來，盡量用例證不要去做邏輯上的因果論證。具體請參看對比以下范文：
4.The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site. "Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."
(病歷文)
In this argument, the arguer recommends us to use Adams, one of the two leading real estate firms in our town, to sell our homes if you want to instead of Fitch, the other leading one. To justify his conclusion, the arguer provides the clear evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast to the number 25 of Fitch, and even many of which are only part-time. In addition, he cited the fresh statistics of revenues of both Adams and Fitch, which respectively are $168,000 and $144,000. To make it more conceivable, the arguer even lists out a self-experienced case to exhibit the superior sell speed of Adams to Fitch. Although all the evidences above seem reasonable, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.
In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes Adams' service is better than Fitch's with the assumption that more agents, more satisfaction. The 40 agents in Adams might be poorly trained and unqualified with an extremely low work efficiency, thus enlarging the number of the agents is the only feasible compensation. While Fitch's 25 agents may be well trained and be rich in experience, although many of them work only part-time, under the present work condition it is enough. And also the quality of the service can't be oversimplified to only a factor of the number of employees, which, in our common sense, has no necessary correlation. It is some other things should be taken into consideration, such as social reputation, the feedbacks of customers and the company's culture and spiritual, to avoid making the assertion too unwarranted.
In the second place, the statistics offered by the arguer can't elucidate anything. It seems true that Adams' achievement is greater than Fitch's through the comparison of revenues, but the data itself is too vague to be informative. Taking into account the service charge, which can't be omitted in this case, we absolutely have adequate reasons to doubt the charge from Adams is far larger than Fitch, which eventually leads to such a gap. Another possibility of the result is contributing to the types of house they are entrusted to sell, since no evidence showed that Adams can afford to sell the lower-price estates while Fitch can assume the opposite ones, thus the phenomenon arises.
Last but not least, in short of legitimacy is that Fitch really sells homes slower than Adams does. According to the arguer's narrative, he entrusted his home to Fitch ten years ago when the balance of offer-request heavily outweighed the left side and Fitch selling it in more than four months is nothing but a miracle. Adams, instead, sold his another home in one month last year during which the request for house might be booming as a result of influx of the foreign immigrants. Under this circumstance, Adams' success, however, is merely ordinary. Besides, the two houses sold out no doubt have natural differences, which tightly related to the smooth process of selling, such as location, structure, areas, and materials. The arguer thus makes so hasty a generalization regardless of these crucial points.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned in lack of some indispensable evidence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would demonstrate that the superior quality of Adams' agents and the relatively lower charge comparable to Fitch's. Additionally, more details should be evinced, concerning the actual estate situation in those periods of time and fundamental instructions of the two sold houses, to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities. (587 words)
點評：該范文充斥著上面討論的各種毛病，僅開頭就131字，加上結(jié)尾超過200字，已經(jīng)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過正文1/3篇幅，是不可取的。許多模式句型充斥，結(jié)尾老套，不值得學(xué)習(xí)借鑒。另外很多考生關(guān)心這樣一來字?jǐn)?shù)就不合“要求”。ETS從來沒有對作文字?jǐn)?shù)有要求，盡管網(wǎng)上流行說法認(rèn)為閱卷者將字?jǐn)?shù)列為打分項目之一，但是在ETS公布的評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中是覓不著蹤跡的，況且ETS極講究科學(xué)性，不會以貌取人，但求“以理服人”，這
從他考試的設(shè)計可以看出來。所以正常的ARGUMENT作文可以在“350——500”字之間，而ISSUE可在“450——600”之間，這是按正常打字速度與思維速度指定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。很多網(wǎng)上作文包括我這里的某些范文都有遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過500，600字的，很少是在真正全封閉作業(yè)下，45分鐘或30分鐘內(nèi)完成的，在考試時間內(nèi)，按上述標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的字?jǐn)?shù)作文拿“滿分”是綽綽有余的，事實說明一切，我的諸多戰(zhàn)友，包括前面提及的Violet，從來都是靠“5步一殺”，“3步一槍”，(500字左右ISSUE，300字左右ARGUMENT)，在4，6級詞匯范圍內(nèi)穩(wěn)拿5分——6分，可見一斑。不相信的考生應(yīng)該自己在PP2、PP3的作文?？贾杏H身體驗，我會在最后推薦大家一個行之有效的快速練習(xí)作文速度和質(zhì)量“槍手作文速成訓(xùn)練法”，我們這一輩稱為“替身殺手”的人都是這樣練出來的。
17. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ--which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks--has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
(范文)
The argument is not well reasoned at all, and it might be wise for Walnut Grove's town council to turn to ABC Disposal.
To begin with, despite EZ's weekly working frequency is as twice as ABC's, yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the "advantage" is necessary and fictional. For instance, if the town's garbage amount is under a particularly lower scale, which merely reaches the quantity of once disposal from ABC and hence the relatively once more from EZ is just a futile plethora. Also, even if twice disposal is applicable, it still deserves to doubt whether most citizens would like usual to choose EZ when taking into account the price of its service has been increased by $500 a month. Most citizens is highly possible to pick up a company that can offer best services while calling for relatively little money, for saving the extra $500, which to some extent is dispensable, I think, most citizens can cope with some easily handled trash with their own methods instead of singly relying on the disposal company.
And another crucial point I cast great discretion on is whether the survey made last year is the persuasive reflection of the whole citizen's actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the survey's sampling size and accordingly the ultimate respondents echoing the questions. Visualize the citizens of Walnut town are no less than 500 thousands, but ironically only the 5 hundred ones have the fortune to be asked the question and in the end the real available records making some senses are less than the 10% of the interviewers, namely the upper limit is only 50 people. Let alone whether these answers have the widely applicable representative, just judging about the number of respondents we can have justifiable rights to disregard the validity of this survey.
Almost to forget to point out, that the freshly ordered 20 trucks of EZ cannot add another ponderous stake onto the balance, on the contrary, it might exacerbate the impressions of EZ in people's mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the company's property, and to take this disburse back the company must put some additional measures for compensation, thereby increasing the fees can lead the citizens to obtain the most strong conviction of loading the economic debt onto their shoulders, which finally ruins the tiny fantasy prone to the EZ.
So the arguer's recommendation is just nothing but a cheap propaganda to throw to the vast residents a deceptive illusion. I believe, in general, any one having look through these vulgar tricks full of vague information and implicit causal claims like me would be likely to accept the town council's decision, after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests. (458 words)
點評：這篇文章徹底糾正了上述病歷文的缺點，開頭簡短有力，準(zhǔn)確回應(yīng)，中間正文論述過度自然，值得借鑒，另外結(jié)尾也擺脫了原先的“改錯建議”，用“諷刺”的口吻深化了主題。大家一定要重視這個問題，因為這實在是個“吃力不討好”的事，而且這樣的人還真不少，下面再看一例來自滿分網(wǎng)的習(xí)作，將這種“毛病”升華到了極至。
145.A new study collected data that shows that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. It is well known that many people who snore also stop breathing frequently during the night for a few seconds, a condition called sleep apnea. The interruption of breathing wakes the person—often so briefly that the waking goes unnoticed--and can leave the person too tired during the day to exercise. Anyone who snores, therefore, should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more.
(病歷文)
In this argument, the arguer make a proposal that anyone who snores should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more. In order to prove his claims, a new study collected data has been quoted that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. in addition, the arguer also shows a common sense to support the conclusion, which says that sleep apnea, a condition caused by snore, can wakes the sleeping person often and leave him too tired to exercise during the day.
The explanation of the conclusion sounds quite plausible at the first glance, but after pondering deeply upon the matter, we may find that the arguer fails to build up a causal relationship between the sentific study and the the conclusion as presented above, furthermore, this argument also suffers from critical logical confusion, How can the person who is too tired to exercise join even more aerobic activities during the day? To reveal the flaws of the argument more clearly, let us detail the examination.
To begin with, one major assumption in short of legitimacy is the relationship claimsed between the propensity of weight-gaining among the snores and the method to handle this problem, which is simply described as "eating less". However, why those people who snore are more likely to gain weight still remain unknown, how can the arguer gratuitously give the recommendation that the anyone who snores should try to eat less? there may be other ways to give the explanation of this problem, the most persuasive one is that the fat might cause by the hormone secreted by a kind of glands. When people are snoring, means, under the condition called sleep apnea, the amount of hormone being secreted may exceed or less than, the normal one, which keeps the metabolism speed of the human body. Therefore, it is reasonable to imagine that the problem would even get worse after adopting the arger's suggestion that anyone who snores should eat less than the average person.
In addition, the arguer's conclusion that more excercises should be taken by the those who snore is seriously undermined by the common sense given in the argument, which points out the sleep apnea caused by snore results in the tiredness of the snorer during the day. Can such a tired person take a lot of exercisers besides his work or study? the answer is obviously seem. anyone who has basic logical-deducing ability would see the critical flaw in the argument.
In sum, unless the reslut of a further scientific study can demonstrate that the weight-gaining propensity among the snorers is caused by lacking of excercise and can be solved by eating less, the arguer's conclusion about this medical issue is unfounded.(463 words)
評注：開頭兩段作者什么都沒談，就歸納了論據(jù)結(jié)論用了一段耗去100多字，居然還不過癮，又獨劈一段就為了說明它有問題，又是幾十字，加上結(jié)尾，非主體共耗去200多字，接近全文一半，這樣的謀篇布局實在讓人“心寒”?？梢娮髡邲]有絲毫寫作“結(jié)構(gòu)性”的知識，完全憑借自己的“一相情愿”在“抖包袱”。而下面的范文盡管開頭也作了概括，但是“點到即止”，將文章的中心全部撲在批駁論證上，并且“主次分明”，從而保證了良好的“結(jié)構(gòu)協(xié)調(diào)性”，請讀者品品。
(范文)
The argument astonishingly deduces a conclusion of the easiness to get fatter for the particular group of people who snore at sleep, and accordingly recommends eating less and strengthening the intense of exercises to avoid such trend. While the arguer established his demonstration on the tenable basis of a well-known discovery accepted by public, this argument, however, seems to me a wholly ramshackle one needed to scrutiny.
To begin with, what I cannot make clear since now is the leap from the mere fact of lacking exercise to the aptness for gaining weight, which sounds no necessary cause-and-effect relationship between them. It might be true of the evidence the arguer takes out to show that sleep apnea can interrupt the normal sleeping tempo and hence results the over exhaustion at diurnal work, which obliquely influence the exercises necessarily for these people. The extent of the arguer's inference can only reach this level, to further exploit the aftermath concerning the putting on weight still waits for more information, such as the authoritative report proving such potential nexus, or otherwise, the arguer is only resting the assertion on a gratuitous assumption.
Another obvious cynosure we facilely notice is the recommendation of eating less to relieve the inevitable current for weight growing, which is more unsubstantial. In the whole article, the arguer's claim range only spread to the layer of lacking exercises, referring to the habits of diets is a sudden idea out of any sign predicted, thus acts the role of invalid deduction. Also, the arguer presumptuously holds the conviction of "any" person who snores, ought to take the measure for stint eating, which works against commonsensical knowledge of treating different people by choosing different remedies, at all no two individuals are totally equivalent. Once escaping the condition of eluding such confusion, we are able to, too, recognize the suggestion of recommending those people's joining more exercises are, on the contrary, counterproductive. Even if the prerequisites of people's weight problem actually stems from this very case of fatigue, then more activities mean more fatigue at daily time enjoyed by them, and the circulation undeniably switches to the opposite side.
To sum up, starting from the ridiculous basement to the final fallacious recommendation, the arguer cursorily treat the gross deduction process, and add additional vulnerable announcement in the brittle body of the argument, which ultimately results the further discretion directly leads to its destiny of rebuff. (403 words)