GRE作文考试最大的特点，便是GRE题库的公开，所有GRE考试中可能会出现的作文题目，都已经事先公布在ETS的GRE官网上。尽管考题公开透明，但庞大的题量，对于想要做好充分准备的考生来说，仍然算得上是巨大的挑战。为了方便广大考生准备GRE作文，下面小编就和大家分享GRE官方真题库中ARGUMENT作文的高分范文，并做全面鉴赏分析。
Arg-37
The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis:
"Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway for use as an industrial area. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
【满分范文赏析】
The planning department for the city of Transopolis recommends, as part of its urban renewal plan, that the city convert a troubled residential area into an industrial park and relocate residents from that area to nearby unoccupied housing. To support this recommendation, the planners point out that ten years ago the city converted an area of substandard housing on the other side of town, near a freeway, for industrial use, and that afterwards the area's crime rate declined while the city's overall property-tax revenue increased. While the recommendation is a sensible one, the argument itself needs to be further developed.
【本段结构】
本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文的结论具有说服力。
【本段功能】
作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即Transopolis城市的规划部门建议，该城市应当将其中的一个不安宁的居住地区改造为工业区。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，即十年前这个城市对另外一块居住地区采取了类似的做法，结果是改造后的工业区给改成是带来了很多好处。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。
To begin with, the recommendation relies on two assumptions about the effects of the freeway-area conversion. One such assumption is that the freeway-area conversion caused the decline in that area's crime rate. The mere fact that the conversion occurred just prior to the decline does not sufficiently link the decline in crime to the development. It is possible, for example, that ramped up efforts on behalf of the local police got the riff-raff off the streets. However, common sense dictates that when you remove the criminals from troubled urban areas, the crime rate declines. The author of the argument needs to establish that link more effectively.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设，在Freeway地区变成工业区后，当地的犯罪率下降了。但是，这种仅仅因为两个事件接连发生就判定这两个事件存在因果关系是不成立的，因为可能存在其他的关键原因。因此在没有考虑到这些潜在原因的情况下，原文的这个假设不能成立。
Another such assumption is that the increase in overall property-tax revenue indicates an increase in tax revenue from properties in the freeway area. Perhaps property-tax revenue from the converted properties remained the same, or even declined, after the conversion, and that the city's overall property-tax revenue increase was attributable to properties located elsewhere in the city. For that matter, perhaps the city raised its property-tax rates shortly after the conversion. In short, without ruling out alternative explanations for the developments that came after the freeway-area conversion, the planners cannot convince me that the conversion was responsible for those developments. However, common sense dictates that with industrial development, economic development follows. The author of the argument needs to establish that link more effectively.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第二个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第二段，本段攻击原文所犯的第二个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文说道，在Freeway地区工业化后，城市整体的财产税收上升了。但是，和之前的假设类似，这种仅仅因为两个事件接连发生就判定这两个事件存在因果关系是不成立的，因为可能存在其他的关键原因。因此在没有考虑到这些原因的情况下，原文的这个假设是不合理的。
While considering these two assumptions, one needs to consider that even if these links can be drawn, the recommendation is based on a more troubling assumption: that the proposed conversion would carry the same results as the freeway-area conversion. To consider the recommendation, one needs to pay closer attention to the key differences between the two areas that might undermine the comparison. For example, perhaps the properties surrounding the ones converted in the freeway area were not residential. Common sense dictates that occurrences of crime are less likely to occur in areas where few low class people reside. Since at least some nearby housing is available for residents displaced by the proposed conversion, this conversion might not result in any significant decline in the area's crime rate. At the same time, unless unoccupied nearby housing can accommodate all displaced residents, the conversion might create a homelessness problem, thereby undermining the city's objectives.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第三段，本段攻击原文所犯的第三个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。即便工业化真的能带来种种好处，但是这两个地区可能存在着许多差异，而这些差异往往能够导致，受用于某个城市的方法并不能够受用于另外一个城市。因此，原文并不能证明这两个城市之间的类比假设是成立的。
Finally, the recommendation assumes that all conditions serving to the first residential to-industrial conversion’s success still exist and would help renew Transopolis. Perhaps Transopolis would have more trouble finding occupants for additional industrial buildings today than it did ten years ago owing to regional and national economic changes, demographic shifts, and political influences.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第四个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。
【本段功能】
作为正文第四段，本段攻击原文所犯的第四个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。原文当中假设十年前的情况和现在的情况类似，但是有可能十年前的有利于工业化的种种因素今天已经不存在了。所以，这样的从过去类比今天的假设是不具有说服力的。因此原文的结论并不成立。
In sum, the planners' recommendation, while sound, requires further substantiation. To bolster the argument, the author must provide clear evidence that the freeway-area conversion contributed to the decline in that area's crime rate and to the city's overall property-tax revenue increase. To better assess the argument an audience would need to know what other changes have occurred in the city that might affect the overall outcome of the new project.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即C—S的结尾结构。首先再次重申原文Conclusion是站不住脚的，接下来给出可以增强原文说服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要进一步提供的证据和细节信息等。
【本段功能】
本段作为结尾段，具体功能即为总结归纳+提出建议。段落首先再次重申强调原文作者的论证不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：作者必须证明Freeway地区的工业化的确给当地带来了种种好处，同时Transopolis的这个地区的诸多条件是相当的。此外不难发现，结尾段总结提出的建议与正文各段中依次攻击的错误遥相呼应，分别对应了因果类错误和类比类错误，这使全篇文章显得浑然一体。
【满分要素剖析】
【语言表达】
本文的语言使用规范、清晰，词汇也用得准确地道，并使用多变的句式让考官读起来津津有味，这些都是GRE写作官方的语言要求。同时，文章的结构型语言和内容型语言相得益彰，结构是骨架，内容是血肉，二者完美结合。
1) The planning department for the city of Transopolis recommends…(标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。)To support this recommendation, the planners point out that… While the recommendation is a sensible one, the argument itself needs to be further developed.(标志性的指出文章错误的语言表达。整体开头段是标准的C—A—F的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
2) To begin with, the recommendation relies on two assumptions about the effects of… One such assumption is that… The mere fact that… does not sufficiently link… It is possible, for example, that… The author of the argument needs to establish that link more effectively.(标志性的存在他因导致因果类错误误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
3) …the recommendation is based on a more troubling assumption: that… To consider the recommendation, one needs to pay closer attention to the key differences between the two areas that might undermine the comparison. For example, perhaps…(标志性不同地区的类比类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
4) Finally, the recommendation assumes that all conditions serving to… still exist… Perhaps… today than it did ten years ago…(标志性不同时间的类比类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
【逻辑结构】
本文的写作体现出了非常严谨的开头段—正文段1、2、3、4—结尾段的逻辑体系：
(开头段)The planning department for the city of Transopolis recommends…
(正文段1)To begin with, the recommendation relies on two assumptions about the effects of…
(正文段2)Another such assumption is that…
(正文段3)Thirdly, the speaker assumes that…
(正文段4)Finally, the recommendation assumes that…
(结尾段)In sum, the planners' recommendation, while sound, requires further substantiation. To bolster the argument…
特别注意的是，在文章攻击完因果类假设后，在第四段先是采取了让步，即“While considering these two assumptions, one needs to consider that even if these links can be drawn, the recommendation is based on a more troubling assumption…”，这样的让步能够非常严谨的引出对第二个逻辑错误的攻击，体现了文章严密的整体逻辑分析思路。
