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，小站为大家整理了针对题库中ARGUMENT类文章题目的满分范文，包含详细的逐段讲解和满分要素剖析，相信能给大家提供一些帮助。
Arg-72
"Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading. The article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this impression is contradicted by a recent report on the United States economy, which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. The report also demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time."
*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.
满分范文解析
The statement above refutes the claims from a certain separate article's argument about widespread corporate downsizing and the effects that it has had on workers. To justify the disagreement, the speaker cites the following three findings of a recent report: (1) There has been a net increase in the number of new jobs created since 1992, (2) many workers who lost their jobs have found other work, and (3) most newly created jobs are full-time positions in industries which tend to pay above-average wages. Upon careful scrutiny, it is clear that the information presented it does little to support the disagreement presented therein.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw)。
【此段功能】
本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论：驳斥也一篇文章中“公司downsizing和工人失业”的观点 。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：一是1992年来有更多的新岗位，二是一些失业的人又找到了其他工作，三是很多新工作是全职的而且薪水高于平均工资。论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。
Regarding the first finding, the editorial overlooks the possibility that most of the newly created jobs since 1992 are not suitable for those job seekers downsized by corporations. Perhaps the vast majority of these jobs involve food serving, clerical assistance, and maintenance, and other tasks requiring a low level of skill and experience. At the same time, perhaps most downsized job seekers are highly educated middle managers looking for the same type of work elsewhere. In short, what we’re lacking is a clear connection. We cannot determine if the workers referred to in the first article are the same workers that are clearly beneficiaries of job creation mentioned in the second article.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【此段功能】
本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果。作者认为原文忽视了一个可能性，即1992年以来增加的工作岗位未必适合那些公司下岗的员工。进一步，作者详细阐释的这种可能性。可能很多新工作是food serving，clerical assistanc或mantenance这样的低技术工种，下岗的员工可能都是受过高水平教育的中层管理者。作者提出，两种工作缺乏connection，因此，原文结论是不可靠的。
As for the second finding, the term "many" is far too vague to allow for any meaningful conclusions. It may seem like a trifling matter but in an argument one must always have a clear understanding of the definition of terms. If "many" amounts to an insignificant percentage of downsized employees, then the finding is of little use in refuting the original article's claim.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【此段功能】
本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：论据模糊。作者认为原文中提到的many不具有任何具体含义。进一步，作者提出其他可能性来反驳原文中的结论，可能原文中的“many”值占了下岗工人总数的一小部分，使得原文结论缺乏准确性。
The third finding would lend support to the author's argument only in the case that the following two assumptions could be substantiated: (1) that the newly created jobs in those high-paying industries are suitable for downsized corporate employees, and (2) that the new jobs are among the high-paying ones. Otherwise, downsized employees seeking jobs would be unlikely to regain their former economic status by applying for these newly created positions, whether or not these positions are full-time.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【此段功能】
本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果类错误。作者认为原文的第三条观点成立必须满足两个前提。首先，新工作要适合downsize corporation的员工。其次新工作属于高薪工作。进一步，作者提出，如果不满足这两个条件，员工可能不会获得他们先前的经济地位。
In sum, the author has refuted the first articles claims but has not effectively argued the point regarding corporate downsizing and the corollary effects that it has had on employees. To more effectively refute the claim the author should provide clear evidence that most of those job-seekers match the new jobs that have been created since 1992, and that these new positions are suitable for those job-seekers given their work experience, areas of interest, and former salaries.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即：C – S的结尾结构，首先再次重申原文的站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出给合理建议Suggestion。
【此段功能】
本段作为Argument结尾段，具体功能就总结归纳+建议措施，首先再次重申原文中关于corporation downsizing 和员工失业的反驳是不合理的。接下来作者给出使文章更有说服力合理化的建议：一是要给出job-seeker适合new jobs的证据，二是要给出新工作适合job seeker的experience, interest以及salary的证据。结尾段的几条建议非常规整的隐射前面的两个主要错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。
满分因素剖析
一、语言表达
1. The statement above refutes the claims from a certain separate article's argument about... . To justify the disagreement, the speaker cites the following three findings of a recent report: (1) (2) (3) . Upon careful scrutiny, it is clear that the information presented it does little to support the disagreement presented therein.
标志性的GRE argument开头段写法，采用C-E-F的结构。先提出原文的conclusion，紧接着给出原文中为了支撑结论引用的证据，最后指出文章存在逻辑错误，从而引出下文。
2. Regarding the first finding, the editorial overlooks the possibility that ... .(标志性的GRE argument论证段开头，提出文章存在的因果类错误，并指出文章忽略的其他可能性) Perhaps ... At the same time, perhaps ... .(进一步阐释影响结论的其他可能性，从而反驳原文) In short, what we’re lacking is a clear connection. We cannot determine ,,, .(最后重申原文中的错误)
3. As for the second finding, the term "many" is far too vague to allow for any meaningful conclusions. It may seem like a trifling matter but in an argument one must always have a clear understanding of the definition of terms. If ..., then...
标志性的GRE argument “论据模糊”类错误攻击模板
二、逻辑结构
本文是非常严谨的开头段-正文段1-正文段2--正文段3-结尾段的的五段论逻辑体系。开头段按照C-E-F的逻辑结构，顺利引出后文的分析。论证段中，从提出错误，到分析错误，到给出可能性，最后总结错误，层次清晰，衔接自然。结尾段总结全文，重申错误，给出合理化建议。这样一篇文章从开头到结尾逻辑严谨，内容清晰，圆满的完成了论证的作用。
本文三个正文段的开头完整的对应了首段提到的三个Evidence，这样的文章结构上更加紧密，内容上也更加连贯。
Regarding the first finding,
As for the second finding,
The third finding would lend support to the author's argument only in the case that
