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。下面小编就和大家分享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文章。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文章更有说服力。下面小编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 executivesaccording to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed anassociation between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success oftheir firms. Of the advertising firms studied those whose executives reportedneeding no more than 6 hours of sleep per night had higher profit margins andfaster growth. These results suggest that if a business wants to prosper, itshould hire only people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstatedassumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends onthese assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if theassumptions 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。

写一篇回应文章，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2016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，可以让你的文章更有说服力。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 thandemocratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will ofgeneral people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be tracedback to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domesticaffairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the ourgovernment faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost ofsacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas andthoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.

Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writingor any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the commongood, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies suchsupervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under differentconditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the“common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is theinstrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; inthe Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practicedcensorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrinesof churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries,the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course,for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards,censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless ofthe practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of thedemocratic government is quite doubtable.

The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also howit is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work ofart, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decidewhether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its contentalways labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by thegovernors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and LadyChatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstlyconsidered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the Americangovernment, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form ofcensorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will putmore or less a negative effect on their development.

Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so muchoppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from beingperfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At thispoint, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. Thecensorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal andpractical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to createa more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.

GRE写作高分范文：information

GRE写作题目：

Much of the information that people assume is factualactually turns out tobe inaccurate. Thus，any piece of information referred to as a‘fact’should bemistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.

大多数人们认为是事实的信息结果实际上都是不准确的。因此，任何据称是事实的信息都应该被质疑，因为它在将来很可能会被证明为是错误的。

GRE写作范文：

Should we be doubtful to all the information at hands because the rightnessof which is uncertain? The speaker claims so，I concede that people often commitvarious fallacies in the course of cognizing things，however I fundamentally takeexception of the arguer's assertion to mistrust every fact we might encounter.And I will substantially discuss my views thereinafter.

To begin with，the speaker seems to implicate that a fact would be provenfalse in the future under numerous circumstance. Nevertheless I prefer to arguerthat facts never change. No matter how did the Medieval Church and Inquisitionpersecute Bruno，the fact never changes that the earth is far from being thecenter of the universe as the religious sovereigns had assumed or hopedfor，while just a minor particle in it. Equally，no matter how Edison had tried toincite the public fear and distrust to the alternative current electricity，thefact never changes that Teals’ electrical system is vastly superior to hisdirect current electrical one，and would be accepted and applied in largerrange.

However，what do change are the human's objective interpretations to facts.One compelling argument to this point is that，due to the limitation of human’sknowledge and comprehensive capability，they tend to make insufficient or evenfalse understanding to the certain fact. An apt illustration is the changes ofcognition to disease. While at the ancient time，our progenitors believed the aman becoming a patient for the reason that he had conduct crimes or offendedsome ghosts or spirits，the contemporary people have well know that the varies ofpathogens are the basic causes to our diseases，and the defects of our immunesystem and so forth are also the factors as well. Another argument for thechange of comprehension to fact is that different people always observe andinterpret from different perspectives. Though the Relativity theory is not wellcompliable with the Quantum mechanism，no one call the greatness of both Einsteinand Bohr，because their theories are based on distinct views，the former from themacrocosm and the later from the microcosm.

Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons for that human tend to make fallaciesduring the cause of comprehending and cognizing facts，these reasons should neverbe the excuses to doubt every conclusion we might draw from facts. Based oncertain rational inference and proper knowledge fundament，the conclusions wemake might well be justifiable，if not completely right，to certain degree. Whatwe need to do is to promote the enterprise of pursuing the better answer and tryto use the result we have get to application，instead of wasting our time toundue doubt and suspicion. Though the medical scientists have not fullyunderstood the mechanism of how the does the implanted organ interact with thewounded body，they are not refrain from using the implanting skill to savepatients，of course the precondition or which is that this technology is muchwell established than the fundamental theory.

To sum up，while I advocate the speaker's opinion that it is inevitable forhuman to comprehend facts inaccurately，for the reason of the limitation of theabilities，I essentially disagree with his assertion that facts will continuallyalter themselves，as well as his recommendation to discredit any piece of fact.In the final analysis，I would arguer once more that facts never change andalthough the misunderstanding to them is inevitable，we should not deferourselves from the pursuit to fully comprehending them.

GRE写作相关文章：