GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：the usefulness of frequent homework assignments
- 2020年08月07日14:10 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（1440）
The data from a survey of high school math and science teachers show that in the district of Sanlee many of these teachers reported assigning daily homework, whereas in the district of Marlee, most science and math teachers reported assigning homework no more than two or three days per week. Despite receiving less frequent homework assignments, Marlee students earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are students in Sanlee. These results call into question the usefulness of frequent homework assignments. Most likely the Marlee students have more time to concentrate on individual assignments than do the Sanlee students who have homework every day. Therefore teachers in our high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The speaker argues that if the state board of education reduced the frequency of homework assigned, performance overall would improve. To support this assertion the speaker cites a statewide survey of math and science teachers. According to the survey, students in the Marlee district, who are assigned homework no more than once per week, achieve better grades and are less likely to repeat a school year than students in the Sanlee district, who are assigned homework every night. The evidence presented provides little credible support for the speaker's assertion.
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。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，概括原文的结论：如果state board减少留作业的频率，学生表现会提高。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：一个在关于math和science teacher的全州调查。一周两次作业Marlee(以后简称M)区比每天都有作业Sanlee(以后简称S)区成绩和合格率要高。论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。
To begin with, the survey suffers from two statistical issues, either of which renders the survey's results unreliable. First, the speaker relies on statistics from only two districts but it is entirely possible that these two districts are not representative of the state's school districts overall. Second, the survey involved only math and science teachers. Yet the speaker draws a broad recommendation for all teachers based on the survey's results.
本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误。作者认为原文所引用的调查在调查对象数量上和质量上都存在问题。首先，只有两个district，很可能不representative。其次，调查只包括 math and science teachers，而建议中提到的是all teacher，所以不合理。
Additionally, the speaker's recommendation relies on the assumption that the amount of homework assigned to students is the only possible reason for the comparative academic performance between students in the two districts. Perhaps there are other reasons. For example, maybe Sanlee teachers are stricter graders then Marlee teachers. Or perhaps Sanlee teachers are less effective than Marlee teachers, and therefore Sanlee students would perform more poorly regardless of homework schedule. In short, in order to properly conclude that fewer homework assignments results in better academic performance, the speaker must first rule out all other possible explanations for the disparity in academic performance between the two districts.
本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果类错误。原文中建议在“作业量是影响学生表现的唯一原因”的基础上提出的。而作者认为可能会有其他影响学习表现的原因。例如，S区的老师比M取得严格导致S区学生表现不如M区，或是S区的学生在homework schedule下perform more poorly。最后，作者提出必须排除其他因素的影响才能下结论。