2018GRE作文ARGUMENT官方题库满分范文点评：club in Monroe...
- 2018年04月02日17:09 来源：小站整理
- 参与（1） 阅读（4732）
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。
2018GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：
The following was written as a part of an application for a small business loan by a group of developers in the city of Monroe:
"A jazz music club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. Currently, the nearest jazz club is 65 miles away; thus, our proposed club, the C Note, would have the local market all to itself. Plus, jazz is extremely popular in Monroe: over 100,000 people attended Monroe's jazz festival last summer, several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe, and the highest-rated radio program in Monroe is 'Jazz Nightly,' which airs every weeknight. Finally, a nationwide study indicates that the typical jazz fan spends close to $1,000 per year on jazz entertainment. It is clear that the C Note cannot help but make money."
【满分范文赏析】
This loan applicant claims that a jazz club in Monroe would be a profitable venture. To support this claim the applicant points out that a jazz club in Monroe would face no competition, as the nearest club is 65 miles away. He also cites various other evidences that jazz is popular among Monroe residents. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the applicant's claim.
【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无法让原文逻辑上没有问题。
【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，即在Monroe地区开办一个爵士乐俱乐部是有利可图的。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，包括，在该地区不存在竞争对手，以及在该地区爵士乐非常流行。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。
First of all, if the demand for a live jazz club in Monroe were as great as the applicant claims, it seems that Monroe should already have one or more such clubs. The fact that the closest jazz club is 65 miles away reveals a point of uncertainty, which should be reserved for further study. Since the applicant has not adequately responded to this concern, his claim that the proposed club would be profitable is untenable.
【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。原文当中提到，虽然爵士乐在当地很流行，但是在Monroe当地并没有爵士乐俱乐部，所以在Monroe并不存在俱乐部的竞争者。但相反，这个假设的因果关系可能被颠倒了，即正是因为爵士乐在当地需求量不高导致当地不存在爵士乐俱乐部。所以，原文当中的这个观点不合理。
Thirdly, while several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe, their residing in Monroe lend little significant support to the applicant's claim. It is entirely possible that these musicians perform elsewhere, perhaps at the club located 65 miles away. This would go a long way toward explaining why Monroe does not currently have a jazz club, and it would weaken the applicant's assertion that the C-Note would be profitable.
【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——因果类错误。原文假设因为在Monroe当地有很多爵士乐音乐家，他们的存在会促进C-Note这个爵士乐俱乐部的盈利。但实际上这些音乐家可能不会更倾向于在当地的俱乐部演出。因此，原文的这个关于音乐家和俱乐部盈利的因果假设是没有说服力的。
Finally, the nationwide study showing that the average jazz fan spends $1,000 each year on jazz entertainment would lend support to the applicant's claim only if it could be determined that a portion of this budget would certainly be allocated for the use of enjoyment in a new club.
【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】
作为正文第四段，本段攻击原文所犯的第四个重要逻辑错误——样本类错误。原文假设国家性质的调查能够等同于当地的情况。但实际上当地的个体情况可能并非如此，因此原文的这个观点是没有说服力的。
