GRE写作ARGUMENT逻辑技巧

GRE写作ARGUMENT逻辑技巧

GRE作文argument为批判性论述文，需要对给出的一段论述文字进行分析，找到其逻辑漏洞并加以攻击。下面就和大家分享GRE写作ARGUMENT区分主次要逻辑技巧，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE写作ARGUMENT区分主次要逻辑技巧

GRE写作怎样判断主次要逻辑漏洞?

如上文所说，其实很多时候一篇argument题目素材里，存在的逻辑漏洞往往不止一处，对于一些写作驳论文经验丰富的考生来说，有些题目甚至一眼望去就是千疮百孔的。但这并不代表大家随便抓住一点就可以写出很有说服力的*。学会区分逻辑漏洞的主要和次要，集中精力从主要漏洞入手进行写作才能让*更有说服力。下面通过一个实例为大家分析：

GRE写作ARGUMENT真题实例分析

The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine.

A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the

executives need and the success of their firms. Of the advertising firms studied those whose executives reported needing no more than 6 hours of sleep per night had higher profit margins and faster growth. These results suggest that if a business wants to prosper, it should hire only people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

作文题目翻译

最近一项研究根据每晚平均睡眠时间对300名男性和女性Mentian广告经理需要的睡眠总量与他们公司的成功之间的关联。被研究的广告公司中，那些报告每晚需要的睡眠不超过6小时的经理有较高的利润率和较快的增长。这些结果表明，如果一个企业想要成功，就应该雇佣那些每晚只需要不超过6小时睡眠时间的人。

写一篇回应*，探讨上述论据中明示和/或隐含的假设，并解释该论据如何建立在这些假设之上;如果这些假设不合理，会对该论据产生什么影响";

逻辑链整理

如果一个企业想要成功，就应该雇佣那些每晚只需要不超过6小时睡眠时间的人。

写作思路解读

这道题目选自20XX年9月18日GRE考试机经，可以看出这道题目其实本身存在许多逻辑漏洞。比如STUDY的结论是否权威，300人的样本数是否足够，还有受访者的男女比例，企业成功能否只靠经理，该现象是否只存在特定行业中等等。逻辑漏洞一大堆，但并不代表着每个都值得大家大写特写一番。

一般来说，比较主要的漏洞往往是从题目本身出发的，比如刚才提到的企业成功能否只靠经理以及广告行业现象是否只是特定行业问题等等。对这些漏洞进行攻击，可以让你的*更有说服力。而其他诸如针对调查结果合理性权威性的漏洞，只能说是次要漏洞，大家可以在写到最后的时候稍微提一提，但如果把这些次要问题当成主要问题来展开写作，就显得有些小题大做了。

GRE写作高分范文：审查的公正性

GRE作文题目：

Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.

审查很少能够做到公正。

GRE写作正文：

“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.

Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the wor d “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship