GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：roller-skating accidents and protective equipment
- 2020年08月07日14:10 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（1323）
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.
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.
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)。
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.
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.
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.
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。