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-142
Hospitals indicate that roller-skating accidents are high and that there is a clear need for more protective equipment. Within the group of people reported as having been injured in roller-skating accidents, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
满分范文赏析
The argument above is well presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance. Because of the hospital statistics regarding people who arrive after roller-skating accidents, the roller skaters should invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment which will reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident. Upon closer examination, it is easy to identify the unproven assumptions upon which the argument is based.
【此段结构】
本段采用了非标准的Argument开头段结构。即：E– C - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的概括了原文为了结论所引用的E(Evidence)，接下来提出Evidence所支持的C(Conclusion)。。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，概括了原文中的证据：医院关于roller skater受伤情况的统计，接下里提出原文的结论：roller skater应该用high-quality protective gear 和 reflective equipment来减少事故受伤。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。
To begin with, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear—preventative gear, such as light reflecting material, and protective gear, such as helmets. Preventative gear warns others, presumably motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the “other” is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether or not it is caused by the skater or by an external force. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident.
【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。作者提出原文中的结论的结论不够准确。作者认为，protective gear可以不能阻止accident，但可以减少accident 造成的 injury。而preventive gear才能阻止accident.
In addition, the argument is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. It is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots—relatively dangerous places to skate. People who are generally more safety conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.
【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：错误因果(忽略他因)+调查类错误。作者认为原文忽略了带防护设备和不带防护设备的skater内在的区别。作者认为，带gear的人要更小心谨慎，而且很少会因为careless或dangerous behavior而受伤。进一步，作者提出文章存在调查类错误。文中引用的调查中参与者是在street和parking lot这样危险的地方上滑冰的人，而谨慎的人一般在parks或back yards滑冰。
Moreover, no evidence is presented to substantiate that safety gear prevents severe injuries. In the likeliest case scenario, if there were a severe accident, safety garments would only reduce the overall severity of the injury sustained. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends when doctors' offices are closed, skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. So, actually, the number of accidents represented in the emergency room may be misleading.
【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：错误因果(无理由推断)+调查类错误。作者认为原文中关于“safety gear可以减少重伤的论断”的论断是不合理的。作者提出，safety gear只能减少伤害的严重程度。同时，作者认为skating通常在晚上或周末进行，受轻伤的人一般会去急诊室，所以原文中引用的关于急诊室数据的调查是靠不住的。
In this argument, I can identify no evidence suggesting that high quality gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may be as easily noticed by as a yellow protective shirt. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
【此段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第四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】
本段作为正文第四段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果(无理由推断)+调查类错误。作者认为原文中关于“safety gear可以减少重伤的论断”的论断是不合理的。作者提出，safety gear只能减少伤害的严重程度。同时，作者认为skating通常在晚上或周末进行，受轻伤的人一般会去急诊室，所以原文中引用的关于急诊室数据的调查是靠不住的。
Overall, the argument is too weak to be the basis upon which one should form a conclusion—that roller skaters should invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment in order to reduce their risk or severe injury. Before any final decisions are made about whether the roller skaters should invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, the argument needs to be entirely reworked.
【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，首先再次原文中的建议不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：在下任何关于high quality protective gear的结论之前，文章必须rework。
满分因素剖析
一、语言方面
1. The argument above is well presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance. Because of ... (首句概括原文的概括了原文为了结论所引用的E(Evidence) )the roller skaters should ... Upon closer examination, it is easy to identify the unproven assumptions upon which the argument is based(指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw),引出下文)
本段采用E– C - F的开头结构
2. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who ... —relatively dangerous places to skate. People who are generally more safety conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.
标志性的调查类错误攻击体系
3. Moreover, no evidence is presented to substantiate that ... . In the likeliest case scenario, if ... 标志性的“错误因果”攻击语句
二、逻辑结构
本文内容清晰，逻辑严谨，采用了开头段——正文段1——正文段2——正文段3————正文段4——结尾段的六段论结构，文章长短适中，层次一目了然。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。
