北美范文的解題策略匯總基本同意，細(xì)節(jié)有異議：原則上同意作者觀點(diǎn)，但觀點(diǎn)涉及到具體問題時(shí)有保留。結(jié)構(gòu)上，先肯定大的原則，然后具體討論那些情況下會(huì)有問題。這種策略適合的問題往往有一個(gè)大的框架，又有一些特殊的個(gè)案。
"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that money spent on research is generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.
作者的立論思路是順應(yīng)原命題的結(jié)構(gòu)形成的。首先肯定命題前半部分所提出的大前提，然后對(duì)后半部分的特殊情況提出質(zhì)疑?？忌跇?gòu)思的時(shí)候也應(yīng)該注意觀察原命題的結(jié)構(gòu)，從中獲得啟發(fā)，提出有說服力的觀點(diǎn)。
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivety about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.
在肯定命題的基礎(chǔ)上，作者提出需要警惕的極端情況。一方面承認(rèn)公共政治對(duì)適當(dāng)隱瞞的需求，另一方面又指出過度隱瞞可能對(duì)民主基石的威脅。這種對(duì)平衡與妥協(xié)的把握，恰好反映了GRE作文所要求的思想深度。
Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity.
Have technological innovations of the last century failed to bring about true progress for humanity, as the statement contends? Although I agree that technology cannot ultimately prevent us from harming one another, the statement fails to account for the significant positive impact that the modern-industrial and computer revolutions have had on the quality of life at least in the developed world.
作者用一個(gè)問句綜述了原命題的三個(gè)句子，這種語言的功力是我們所應(yīng)該追求的。對(duì)原命題進(jìn)行扼要的復(fù)述，可以說是練習(xí)GRE作文的第一課，讀者一定要下功夫，因?yàn)檫@將是你參加機(jī)考寫下的第一個(gè)句子，也是考官讀到的第一句。作者的思路還是先肯定大的原則，然后提出一些異議。值得注意的是，作者具體的指出了后文將詳述的兩個(gè)例子－現(xiàn)代工業(yè)和計(jì)算機(jī)信息，以及提示可能縮窄的討論范圍－發(fā)達(dá)國家。這樣就為中間段落具體的論述做好鋪墊。
換位思考與漏洞攻擊：先分析原觀點(diǎn)可能成立的理由，然后指出作者忽略的問題。結(jié)構(gòu)上，采取先揚(yáng)后抑的策略。這種策略很適合原命題有一定的道理，又有漏洞的問題。對(duì)于有字?jǐn)?shù)焦慮的考生也特別有用。
As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate---and, perhaps, even cruel---when one considers all the potential uses of such money.
The speaker asserts that using public resources to support the arts is unjustifiable in a society where some people go without food, jobs, and basic survival skills. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that art is not a fundamental human need, and that government is not entirely trustworthy when it comes to its motives and methods. However, the speaker overlooks certain economic and other societal benefits that accrue when government assumes an active role in supporting the arts.
作者為了更好的攻擊原命題，首先站在對(duì)方的立場(chǎng)上考慮，分析對(duì)方的理由，然后看到對(duì)方的破綻并指出對(duì)方忽略的問題。經(jīng)過這樣的分析和討論，作者就可以對(duì)整個(gè)問題提出一個(gè)比較完整和全面的觀點(diǎn)。
"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
Is it a "grave mistake" to theorize without data, as the speaker contends? I agree insofar as to theorize before collecting sufficient data is to risk tainting the process of collecting and interpreting further data. However, in a sense the speaker begs the question, by overlooking the fact that every theory requires some data to begin with. Moreover, the claim unfairly ignores equally grave consequences of waiting to theorize until we obtain too much data.
作者先討論原命題可能成立的理由，然后指出對(duì)方邏輯上的失誤（beg the question: check out informal fallacy）以及忽略的情況。值得注意的是作者提到beg the question是一種非正式的邏輯謬誤（informal fallacy）。
引入新概念：以特定的概念，引出幾個(gè)可能的論證；并對(duì)命題正反面的論證進(jìn)行分別論述，后指出問題很復(fù)雜難有定論。使用這個(gè)策略，需能夠?qū)σ粋€(gè)命題引發(fā)雙面、多角度的思考和討論。
At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.
What are the limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction? The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make "extraordinary" efforts--at the expense of money and jobs--to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.
本段的開頭頗有特色。作者沒有復(fù)述原命題，而是以一個(gè)問句直指問題的要害，這里的limit用的非常妙，點(diǎn)出了討論的關(guān)鍵。接下來的幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵概念－道德、良知、自我保存和經(jīng)濟(jì)－則引出這個(gè)問題的不同層面，為下文的論證建立一個(gè)框架。這個(gè)框架的建立對(duì)于文章的結(jié)構(gòu)和完整都至關(guān)重要?？陀^上，有了這樣的框架，作者就不愁后面寫什么－而這正是很多考生所擔(dān)心的問題。
具體情況具體分析：指出命題在某些方面和個(gè)案上是成立的，而在另一些情況則不成立。這種策略的應(yīng)用相當(dāng)廣泛，有助于我們將一個(gè)抽象的問題具體化，并建構(gòu)一個(gè)清晰的論證框架。
"Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve. Anything that is not obviously practical has little value in today's world."
In today's world is practicality our idol---one which all powers and talents must serve. While this claim has considerable merit with respect to most areas of human endeavor--including education, art, and politics--I take exception with the claim when it comes to the direction of scientific research today.
作者指出命題在教育、藝術(shù)和政治等領(lǐng)域有一定道理，而在科研方面卻不成立。這樣在某些具體方面命題成立，另一些具體方面命題不成立的處理手法，在北美范文中十分常見。這樣寫可以體現(xiàn)出作者對(duì)命題的較深入的思考和對(duì)問題復(fù)雜性的認(rèn)識(shí)，同時(shí)又能夠構(gòu)建一個(gè)清晰的框架，讀者應(yīng)該重點(diǎn)模仿學(xué)習(xí)。
分拆命題將一個(gè)命題分拆為幾個(gè)分命題，然后逐個(gè)否定或肯定。分拆的過程往往需要相當(dāng)?shù)慕?jīng)驗(yàn)和分析能力。一旦分拆成功，一個(gè)論證框架就浮現(xiàn).
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
The speaker's claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed for our large dries and cultural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3) cultural traditions are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
這是作者一個(gè)頗具創(chuàng)新的開頭方式，即對(duì)原命題進(jìn)行分拆，并以序號(hào)列點(diǎn)的形式陳述。這樣做不僅能完成考試所要求的對(duì)問題復(fù)雜性的探索，而且能自然的搭建論證的框架。我們可以想象，這篇范文的中間三段將分別批駁分拆后的三個(gè)分命題。當(dāng)然，要做好分拆命題的工作需要相當(dāng)?shù)墓Φ缀徒?jīng)驗(yàn)；由于這種分析方法十分有特色，因此很值得讀者嘗試。
暴露問題，鞏固命題
1．首先肯定命題，然后主動(dòng)暴露命題在某些情況下存在的缺陷，再進(jìn)一步鞏固命題。
"It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves."
I strongly agree that we define ourselves primarily through our identification with social groups, as the speaker asserts. Admittedly, at certain stages of life people often appear to define themselves in other terms. Yet, in my view, during these stages the fundamental need to define one's self through association with social groups is merely masked or suspended.
作者首先表明自己肯定命題的立場(chǎng)，然后承認(rèn)該命題存在的問題。但這只是一個(gè)以退為進(jìn)的策略，終作者還是要強(qiáng)化自己肯定的立場(chǎng)。這樣一波三折的處理，不僅可以展示出作者對(duì)問題的深入理解，也從客觀上豐富了文章的內(nèi)容。
"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that money spent on research is generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.
作者的立論思路是順應(yīng)原命題的結(jié)構(gòu)形成的。首先肯定命題前半部分所提出的大前提，然后對(duì)后半部分的特殊情況提出質(zhì)疑?？忌跇?gòu)思的時(shí)候也應(yīng)該注意觀察原命題的結(jié)構(gòu)，從中獲得啟發(fā)，提出有說服力的觀點(diǎn)。
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivety about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.
在肯定命題的基礎(chǔ)上，作者提出需要警惕的極端情況。一方面承認(rèn)公共政治對(duì)適當(dāng)隱瞞的需求，另一方面又指出過度隱瞞可能對(duì)民主基石的威脅。這種對(duì)平衡與妥協(xié)的把握，恰好反映了GRE作文所要求的思想深度。
Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity.
Have technological innovations of the last century failed to bring about true progress for humanity, as the statement contends? Although I agree that technology cannot ultimately prevent us from harming one another, the statement fails to account for the significant positive impact that the modern-industrial and computer revolutions have had on the quality of life at least in the developed world.
作者用一個(gè)問句綜述了原命題的三個(gè)句子，這種語言的功力是我們所應(yīng)該追求的。對(duì)原命題進(jìn)行扼要的復(fù)述，可以說是練習(xí)GRE作文的第一課，讀者一定要下功夫，因?yàn)檫@將是你參加機(jī)考寫下的第一個(gè)句子，也是考官讀到的第一句。作者的思路還是先肯定大的原則，然后提出一些異議。值得注意的是，作者具體的指出了后文將詳述的兩個(gè)例子－現(xiàn)代工業(yè)和計(jì)算機(jī)信息，以及提示可能縮窄的討論范圍－發(fā)達(dá)國家。這樣就為中間段落具體的論述做好鋪墊。
換位思考與漏洞攻擊：先分析原觀點(diǎn)可能成立的理由，然后指出作者忽略的問題。結(jié)構(gòu)上，采取先揚(yáng)后抑的策略。這種策略很適合原命題有一定的道理，又有漏洞的問題。對(duì)于有字?jǐn)?shù)焦慮的考生也特別有用。
As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate---and, perhaps, even cruel---when one considers all the potential uses of such money.
The speaker asserts that using public resources to support the arts is unjustifiable in a society where some people go without food, jobs, and basic survival skills. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that art is not a fundamental human need, and that government is not entirely trustworthy when it comes to its motives and methods. However, the speaker overlooks certain economic and other societal benefits that accrue when government assumes an active role in supporting the arts.
作者為了更好的攻擊原命題，首先站在對(duì)方的立場(chǎng)上考慮，分析對(duì)方的理由，然后看到對(duì)方的破綻并指出對(duì)方忽略的問題。經(jīng)過這樣的分析和討論，作者就可以對(duì)整個(gè)問題提出一個(gè)比較完整和全面的觀點(diǎn)。
"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
Is it a "grave mistake" to theorize without data, as the speaker contends? I agree insofar as to theorize before collecting sufficient data is to risk tainting the process of collecting and interpreting further data. However, in a sense the speaker begs the question, by overlooking the fact that every theory requires some data to begin with. Moreover, the claim unfairly ignores equally grave consequences of waiting to theorize until we obtain too much data.
作者先討論原命題可能成立的理由，然后指出對(duì)方邏輯上的失誤（beg the question: check out informal fallacy）以及忽略的情況。值得注意的是作者提到beg the question是一種非正式的邏輯謬誤（informal fallacy）。
引入新概念：以特定的概念，引出幾個(gè)可能的論證；并對(duì)命題正反面的論證進(jìn)行分別論述，后指出問題很復(fù)雜難有定論。使用這個(gè)策略，需能夠?qū)σ粋€(gè)命題引發(fā)雙面、多角度的思考和討論。
At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.
What are the limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction? The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make "extraordinary" efforts--at the expense of money and jobs--to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.
本段的開頭頗有特色。作者沒有復(fù)述原命題，而是以一個(gè)問句直指問題的要害，這里的limit用的非常妙，點(diǎn)出了討論的關(guān)鍵。接下來的幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵概念－道德、良知、自我保存和經(jīng)濟(jì)－則引出這個(gè)問題的不同層面，為下文的論證建立一個(gè)框架。這個(gè)框架的建立對(duì)于文章的結(jié)構(gòu)和完整都至關(guān)重要?？陀^上，有了這樣的框架，作者就不愁后面寫什么－而這正是很多考生所擔(dān)心的問題。
具體情況具體分析：指出命題在某些方面和個(gè)案上是成立的，而在另一些情況則不成立。這種策略的應(yīng)用相當(dāng)廣泛，有助于我們將一個(gè)抽象的問題具體化，并建構(gòu)一個(gè)清晰的論證框架。
"Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve. Anything that is not obviously practical has little value in today's world."
In today's world is practicality our idol---one which all powers and talents must serve. While this claim has considerable merit with respect to most areas of human endeavor--including education, art, and politics--I take exception with the claim when it comes to the direction of scientific research today.
作者指出命題在教育、藝術(shù)和政治等領(lǐng)域有一定道理，而在科研方面卻不成立。這樣在某些具體方面命題成立，另一些具體方面命題不成立的處理手法，在北美范文中十分常見。這樣寫可以體現(xiàn)出作者對(duì)命題的較深入的思考和對(duì)問題復(fù)雜性的認(rèn)識(shí)，同時(shí)又能夠構(gòu)建一個(gè)清晰的框架，讀者應(yīng)該重點(diǎn)模仿學(xué)習(xí)。
分拆命題將一個(gè)命題分拆為幾個(gè)分命題，然后逐個(gè)否定或肯定。分拆的過程往往需要相當(dāng)?shù)慕?jīng)驗(yàn)和分析能力。一旦分拆成功，一個(gè)論證框架就浮現(xiàn).
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
The speaker's claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed for our large dries and cultural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3) cultural traditions are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
這是作者一個(gè)頗具創(chuàng)新的開頭方式，即對(duì)原命題進(jìn)行分拆，并以序號(hào)列點(diǎn)的形式陳述。這樣做不僅能完成考試所要求的對(duì)問題復(fù)雜性的探索，而且能自然的搭建論證的框架。我們可以想象，這篇范文的中間三段將分別批駁分拆后的三個(gè)分命題。當(dāng)然，要做好分拆命題的工作需要相當(dāng)?shù)墓Φ缀徒?jīng)驗(yàn)；由于這種分析方法十分有特色，因此很值得讀者嘗試。
暴露問題，鞏固命題
1．首先肯定命題，然后主動(dòng)暴露命題在某些情況下存在的缺陷，再進(jìn)一步鞏固命題。
"It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves."
I strongly agree that we define ourselves primarily through our identification with social groups, as the speaker asserts. Admittedly, at certain stages of life people often appear to define themselves in other terms. Yet, in my view, during these stages the fundamental need to define one's self through association with social groups is merely masked or suspended.
作者首先表明自己肯定命題的立場(chǎng)，然后承認(rèn)該命題存在的問題。但這只是一個(gè)以退為進(jìn)的策略，終作者還是要強(qiáng)化自己肯定的立場(chǎng)。這樣一波三折的處理，不僅可以展示出作者對(duì)問題的深入理解，也從客觀上豐富了文章的內(nèi)容。