GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT真题满分范文分享： budgetary priority given to public education
- 2020年04月29日15:47 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（4436）
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。下面小编就来为大家提供ARGUMENT题库高频作文题目的满分范文赏析。
GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of city-run local newspaper:
"In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."
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.
【满分范文赏析】
This argument concludes that Parson City residents value public-school education more highly than Blue City residents do. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that in both cities the majority of funds for public schools comes from taxes, and that Blue City budgets only half as much money per year for its public schools as Parson City, even though the population in both cities is about the same. The argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which, considered together, render the argument wholly unconvincing.
【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Parson城市的居民比Blue城市的居民对公立学校更加看重。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，即每年Blue城市从税收中给予当地公立学校的资金仅仅是Parson城市的一半。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。
One such assumption is that the total budget for the two cities is approximately the same. It is entirely possible that Blue City's total budget is no more than half that of Parson City. If so, that would account for the discrepancy in the allocation of funds and could not be understood as an indicator that one city cares more or less about education. Even if Parson City devotes a greater percentage of its budget each year for its schools rather than amount of money, the argument relies on the additional assumption that this percentage is a reliable indicator of the value residents place on public-school education. Yet, it is entirely possible, for example, that Blue City's schools are already well funded, or that Blue City has some other, extremely urgent problem which requires additional funding despite a high level of concern among its residents about its public schools. Without clear evidence regarding the circumstances that the two city's face, any comparative analysis is not useful.
【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——样本类错误。原文当中假设，Parson城市和Blue城市的每年总预算是相同的。但实际上可能情况并非如此。有可能Blue城市用于公立学校的这部分资金所占的总预算的比例是要高于Parson城市的，也就是说Blue城市的居民比Parson更关心公立学校的教育。因此在没有考虑这些样本因素的情况下，原文简单地将Parson和Blue的资金分配情况进行比较是不合理的。
Finally, although the argument states that in both cities the majority of money spent on public schools comes from taxes, perhaps the actual percentage is smaller in Blue City than in Parson City, and other such funds come from residents' donations, earmarked for public education. Thus it is possible that Blue City residents donate more money for public-school education than Parson City residents do. If so, this possibility further weakens the argument.
【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——类比类错误。原文假设，仅仅从税收资金对公立学校的分配比例和具体数额就能得知当地居民对公立学校的关心程度的差异。但实际上这样的笼统的类比忽略了能够产生类似结果的其他因素。所以，原文的这个观点是不能让人确信的。
