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-4
“Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams’ revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch’s $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams.”
【满分范文赏析】
The author argues that Adams Realty is superior to Fitch Realty. To support this claim the author cites statistics about the number and working hours of agents, and the number and sales prices of homes sold by the two farms. Further, the author cites anecdotal evidence involving personal experience with Fitch and Adams. A careful analysis reveals that this evidence lends little credible support for the argument.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—E—F的开头结构。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下来概括原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Evidence，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即其Evidence不能为其结论提供可靠的支持。
【本段功能】
本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即Adams不动产公司要优于Fitch不动产公司。本段接下来分布列举了原文为支持其结论所引用的证据——这两家公司所拥有经纪人的数目和工作时间、二者所售出的住宅的数量和价格、以及与两家公司接触的个人经历等等。这些信息的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作出铺垫。
The claim is partially based on the fact that Adams has more agents than Fitch and that many of Fitch’s agents work only part-time. There is no correlation between the number of employees, their working hours, and the quality of their work. Without such a link, we could consider the possibility that a smaller firm could be more effective than a larger one and, likewise, that a part-time agent could be more effective than a full-time agent. Besides, the author does not provide any information about the specific number of Adams agents who work part-time.
【本段结构】
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其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第一段，攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——相关性错误。原文的论点部分建立在Adams的经纪人数目更多并且Fitch的很多经纪人仅兼职工作这一事实上。然而，一个较小规模的公司可能会比一个较大规模的公司效率更高;同理，一位兼职的经纪人也可能会比一位全职的经纪人工作效率更高。另外，原文作者并没有对Adams的兼职经纪人的具体数目提供更多信息。
The claim is also supported by the fact that Adams sold more properties than Fitch last year. One year of sales records is an insufficient sample. It is possible that in most other years Adams could have sold fewer properties than Fitch. Moreover, the disparity in sales volume could be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms. For example, perhaps Adams serves a denser geographic area or in an area where turnover in home-ownership is higher for reasons unrelated to Adams’ effectiveness. It is even possible that the only reason sales volume is higher at Adams is because the company employs more agents but, perhaps, each Adams agent sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence.
【本段结构】
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其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第二段，攻击原文中出现的第二个重要逻辑错误——调查类错误+因果类错误。除上一段中提到的论据外，原文所依赖的另一论据是Adams去年比Fitch售出了更多的房产这一事实。然而，仅仅一年的销售数据是一个不充分的样本——可能在大多数其它年份里Adams的房产销售量均低于Fitch的房产销售量。进一步，本段指出两家公司房产销售量之间的差异可以被这两家公司的相对竞争力之外的其它可能因素所解释，并随后提出了两种其它的可能解释。最后，本段指出作者在没有排除这些其它可能解释之前是不能利用如此缺乏的证据对其结论进行辩护的。
Support for the claim is also drawn from the average sales price of homes. This evidence only illustrates that the homes that Adams sells are more valuable on average than the ones that Fitch sells, not that Adams is more effective in selling homes than Fitch. Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high-priced or low-priced properties skewed these averages, rendering any conclusions about the comparative quality of the two firms based on these averages irrelevant.
【本段结构】
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其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第三段，攻击原文中出现的第三个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误+平均值错误。在原文中，对两家不动产公司房产平均销售价的比较也为原文论点提供了支持。然而，这一证据仅能说明Adams所售房产平均而言比Fitch所售房产的价值更高，而并不能说明Adams的售房效率比Fitch更高。进一步，本段指出房产售价的平均值可能会受到个别售价相对较高或较低的房产的影响，因此基于这些平均值所得出的任何关于这两家不动产公司品质比较的结论均是不相干的。
The author of the argument indicates that Fitch Realty took a considerably longer time to sell one of the author’s homes than it took Adams Realty to sell another one of her homes ten years earlier. However, this disparity can be explained by other plausible factors including, for example, the changing economic conditions during that ten-year period or a difference in the desirability of the two properties. Without establishing that all other factors affecting the speed of a sale were essentially the same for the two homes, the author should not expect an audience to make a decision on this limited anecdotal evidence.
【本段结构】
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其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第四段，攻击原文中出现的第四个重要逻辑错误——(时间上的)错误类比。原文作者指出Fitch在销售作者的一套住宅时所用的时间显著长于Adams十年前在销售作者的另一套住宅时所用的时间。然而，这一差异可以被其它可能因素所解释，如这十年间变化的经济条件或者这两栋住宅可取程度的不同。本段最后指出，作者在确定影响其两栋住宅售出速度的所有其它因素均基本相同之前，不应指望读者在如此有限的轶事性证据的基础上作出决定。
In conclusion, the claim is not a persuasive one. In order to convince an analytical reader, the author needs to provide clear evidence that individual Adams agents are more effective in selling homes than individual Fitch agents, and that the disparity in home sales and sales price is attributable to that difference. Also, to better evaluate the author’s claim the author needs to provide more information comparing the percentage of agents working part-time at Fitch versus Adams. Finally, the author needs to provide more information about the comparative attractiveness of the author’s two homes, and the extent to which the residential real-estate market changed during the decade between the sales of these two homes.
【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。段落首先再次重申原文站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出可以增强原文说服力的合理建议Suggestion，包括原文作者需要进一步提供的证据和信息等。
【本段功能】
本段作为Argument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Argument作者的论证不合理，接下来给出合理的建议——作者必须另外提供证据证明Adams的经纪人在售房时比Fitch的经纪人效率更高;同时，作者还需证明住宅销售数量和价格的差异可以归于这一售房效率的区别。另外，为了更好地评价其结论，作者需要通过更多信息对Adams和Fitch的兼职经纪人数目进行比较。最后，作者还需就其曾售出的两栋住宅对购买者的相对吸引力以及住宅市场在这两栋住宅先后被售出之间相隔的十年中的变化情况提供更多的信息。不难发现，结尾段总结提出的建议非常规整地与正文各段中依次攻击的错误遥相呼应，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 author argues that ….标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。To support this claim the author cites statistics about …. Further, the author cites anecdotal evidence involving personal experience with ….引出原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列的荒谬论据。A careful analysis reveals that this evidence lends little credible support for argument. 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—E—F的语言和逻辑模版体系。
2. The claim is partially based on the fact that …. There is no correlation between …. Without such a link, we could consider the possibility that … and, likewise, that …. Besides, the author does not provide any information about …. 标志性的相关性错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。
3. The claim is also supported by the fact that …. … is an insufficient sample. It is possible that …. 标志性的调查类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。Moreover, the disparity in … could be explained by factors other than …. For example, perhaps …. It is even possible that …. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in …, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence. 标志性的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。
4. Support for the claim is also drawn from …. This evidence only illustrates that …, not that …. 标志性的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high or low … skewed these averages, rendering any conclusions about ... based on these averages irrelevant. 标志性的平均值错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。
5. The author of the argument indicates that …. However, this disparity can be explained by other plausible factors, for example, ….Without establishing that all other factors affecting … were essentially the same, the author should not expect an audience to make a decision on this limited anecdotal evidence.标志性的错误类比的语言和逻辑模版体系。
6. In conclusion, the claim is not a persuasive one. In order to convince an analytical reader, the author needs to provide clear evidence that …. Also, to better evaluate the author’s claim the author needs to provide more information comparing …. Finally, the author needs to provide more information about …. 标志性的Argument结尾段的Conclusion—Suggestion体系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 author argues that ….
正文段1 The claim is partially based on the fact that ….
正文段2 The claim is also supported by the fact that ….
正文段3 Support for the claim is also drawn from ….
正文段4 The author of the argument indicates that ….
结尾段 In conclusion, the claim is not a persuasive one.
特别值得一提的是本文正文第二段的写作。该段首先通过One year of sales records is an insufficient sample. It is possible that in most other years Adams could have sold fewer properties than Fitch.两句简要说明原文中出现的调查类错误;进一步，段中Moreover, the disparity in sales volume could be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms.一句指出原文中出现的因果类错误，并紧接着通过For example, perhaps ….和It is even possible that ….两句递进地提出两种其它的可能解释;最后，该段通过Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence.一句对全段讨论进行总结，充分展现出了正文段严密的逻辑思路。
