网站导航     在线客服  
小站教育
学生选择在小站备考:30天 526145名,今日申请3728人    备考咨询 >>

2018GRE作文ARGUMENT官方题库满分范文点评:Adams and Fitch Realty...

2018年04月23日17:30 来源:小站整理
参与(1) 阅读(1473)

GRE备考资料免费领取

免费领取
摘要:GRE作文虽然有官方题库,但题目总数太多让考生难以做到全部练一遍,因此看完题目直接看对应的高分范文学习写法思路就成为了更有效率的做法。本文将为大家提供ARGUMENT题库高频作文题目的满分范文赏析:Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty...

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ARGUMENT官方题库满分范文点评:Adams and Fitch Realty...图1

2018GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目:

“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。

特别申明:本文内容来源网络,版权归原作者所有,如有侵权请立即与我们联系contactus@zhan.com,我们将及时处理。

相关文章

【备考每日练】最新GRE ISSUE作文题之社会与模范人物... 【备考每日练】最新GRE ARGUMENT作文题之篮子考古 GRE作文题库和机经使用方法详解 助你攻克写作关 【备考每日练】最新GRE ISSUE作文题之成功与新领导阶... 【备考每日练】最新GRE ARGUMENT作文题之用电需求... 新GRE作文真题满分范文讲解剖析之海鲜餐厅 【备考每日练】最新GRE ISSUE作文题之人的行为与外界... GRE作文小词不容小觑 灵活运用助你拿高分
未输入验证码
未输入验证码
未输入验证码
获取验证码
免费领取

你可能需要的资料

日排行
周排行
GRE关键词
版权申明| 隐私保护| 意见反馈| 联系我们| 关于我们| 网站地图| 最新资讯
© 2011-2019 ZHAN.com All Rights Reserved. 沪ICP备15003744号-3
沪公网安备 31010602002658号