GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT真题满分范文分享：Ballmer Island Gazette
- 2020年03月31日15:43 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（3945）
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。下面小编就为大家提供ARGUMENT题库高频作文题目的满分范文赏析：On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of...
GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Ballmer Island Gazette:
“On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island’s moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville’s town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
【满分范文赏析】
The author of this editorial recommends that, to reduce accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, Balmer Island’s city council should restrict moped rentals from 50 to 25 per day, at each of the island’s six rental outlets. To support this recommendation the author cites the fact that last year, when nearby Seaville Island’s town council enforced similar measures, Seaville’s rate of moped accidents decreased by 50%. There are several reasons why this evidence fails to substantiate the claim.
【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不能证实其结论。
【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：为减少涉及摩托自行车与行人的事故的发生，Balmer岛市议会应在该岛六个租车点将摩托自行车的日租借量限制由50辆下调至25辆。本段接下来列举了原文为支持其结论所引用的证据——在去年，当附近的Seaville岛的镇议会实行了类似的措施后，其摩托自行车事故率降低了50%。这些信息的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作铺垫。
To begin with, the author assumes that all other conditions in Balmer that might affect the rate of moped-pedestrian accidents will remain unchanged after the restrictions are enacted. People often find ways to circumvent restrictions. For example, with a restricted supply of rental mopeds, people in Balmer who currently rent in the summer might purchase mopeds instead. Also, the number of pedestrians might increase in the future.With more pedestrians, especially tourists, the risk of moped-pedestrian accidents would probably increase. For that matter, the number of rental outlets might increase to make up for the artificial supply restriction per outlet, a likely scenario in consideration of the fact that moped rental demand will not likely decrease.Without considering and ruling out these and other possible changes that might contribute to a high incidence of moped-pedestrian accidents, the author cannot convince me that the proposed restrictions will necessarily have the desired effect.
【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，攻击原文中出现的第一个重要逻辑错误——忽略他因。原文作者假设在制定限制措施后，Balmer岛上所有其它可能影响摩托自行车事故率的条件将保持不变。然而，人们经常会发现避开限制的方法。例如，当摩托自行车的租借量受限制时，目前在夏季租用摩托自行车的Balmer岛人们可能会改为购买摩托自行车。另外，行人的数目在未来可能会增加。行人(尤其是游客)数目的增加可能会导致摩托自行车和行人之间发生事故的增多。鉴于对摩托自行车出租的需求量不太可能会下降，摩托自行车租借点的数目很可能会增加，以弥补每个租车点的租借量所受到的人为限制。本段最后指出：作者在没有考虑和排除这些可能会提高摩托自行车和行人纸质件事故的发生率的其它改变之前，是不能说服读者其所提出的措施一定会获得期望的效果的。
To further explore the link between the two locations and a reduction in number of accidents, the author relies on what could be an unfair comparison. Perhaps Balmer’s ability to enforce moped-rental restrictions does not meet Seaville’s ability.In that case, the mere enactment of similar restrictions in Balmer is no guarantee of a similar result. Or perhaps the demand for mopeds in Seaville is always greater than in Balmer. Specifically, if fewer than all available mopeds are currently rented per day from the average Balmer outlet, while in Seaville everyavailable moped is rented each day, then the proposed restriction is likely to have less impact on the accident rate in Balmer than in Seaville.
【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——错误类比。或许Balmer岛在加强摩托自行车租借限制时的执行力不及Seaville岛的执行力。在这种情形下，仅仅在Balmer岛上制定与Seaville岛相似的限制并不能保证获得相似的效果。抑或是Seaville岛对摩托自行车的需求量始终比Balmer岛上的大。特别地，如果通常的Balmer岛租借点每天租出的摩托自行车数量比其可供租借的摩托自行车总量少，而Seaville岛租借点的每辆摩托自行车每天均被租出，那么被提议的限制对Balmer岛事故率的影响很可能会小于其对Seaville岛的影响。
Finally, the author provides no evidence that the same restrictions that served to reduce the incidence of all “moped accidents” by 50% would also serve to reduce the incidence of “accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians” by 50%. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the number of moped accidents not involving pedestrians decreased by a greater percentage, while the number of moped-pedestrian accidents decreased by a smaller percentage, or even increased. Since the author has not accounted for these possibilities, the recommendation requires further substantiation.
【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——错误假设。作者没有提供证据证明使得“摩托自行车事故”的发生减少50%的那些限制同样也将使得“涉及摩托自行车和行人的事故”的发生减少50%。如果缺乏如此证据，完全可能是摩托自行车事故的数目降低了更大的百分比，而摩托自行车和行人之间的事故降低了较小的百分比，甚至可能上升了。本段最后指出：既然作者没有对这些可能性进行说明，其建议需要被进一步证实。
