GRE 满分作文解析 + 实例 + 模板

Table of Contents

Issue Essay

Argument Essay

---

Issue：准备提纲

　　Issue要求考生根据所给的题目，完成一篇表明立场的逻辑立论文。Issue题库涉及社会、文化、科技、历史、政治、艺术等诸多方面。不同类型的题目有较大差别，但在同一类型的题目中却包含了许多命题方向非常接近的题目。

　　Issue写作对于论据的要求是非常高的，因此你的名人事例的储备，相关知识量的积累是非常重要的。这一环节也正是GRE考生最为头疼的一部分，举不出支持自己的观点的例子，因此让自己的文章显得只有苍白的论证，缺乏说服力。因此要多读历史，积累例子，尤其关注那些重要的哲学家、科学家、艺术家、政治领袖等人的生平事迹、主要贡献。例如Issue里的这样一道真题：“Truly profound thinkers and highly creative artists are always out of step with their time and their society。”(真正影响深远的思想家和具有高度创造力的艺术家总是与他们的时代和社会步伐不一致)。这个题目如果没有必备的那些思想家和艺术家的例子，文章必然缺乏说服力。因此读历史积累写作素材，具体说就是论据素材是拿高分的一个重要环节。

　　另外，写提纲对于Issue部分的备考是至关重要的，也是最占用时间、最核心的一个环节。每一个题目的提纲力求详细，不用去写开头段和结尾段，就写正文各段你的各个分支观点，也就是正文部分的论证过程。除了论证以外，写完后想想可以用些什么论据，把支持论证的论据也写上。需要强调的是，一定要较为详细地写Issue提纲，否则，在考场如果遇到没有思考过的题目，很容易自乱阵脚，导致失败。此外，题目必须考前按题材分类去写提纲，看懂，知道对立面和大致写作思路。论据往往在同类的很多题目中通用。写完提纲后，再写20-40篇完整的文章(语言能力弱的话，尽量多写)。

GRE写作ISSUE作文开头段经典模板分享

GRE ISSUE作文的开头方式比较常见的有这四种：直接陈述观点+概述理由;比较双方观点，阐明自己观点;背景开头+立场;提问+立场。下面我们逐一来看一下四种方式的具体例子。

第一种：直接陈述观点+概述理由

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that money spent on research is generally well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.

例文中先支持原文观点：把钱话在研究上是很好的投资;然后转折：结果有争议的研究可以不包含在投资范围的;最后，引出下文要论述的理由。

第二种：比较双方观点，阐明自己观点

There is much debate over the universal issues whether or not tradition and modernization are incompatible. Some people may claim that they necessarily conflict with each other, while others argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. Insofar as I can think, the best way is to coordinate them and exert their own advantages for contemporary society.

第一句改写题目，第二句比较两种立场，第三句提出自己的观点。这种开头比较简单易学，也是同学们比较常用的开头方式，需要注意的是在点明自己的观点的时候，最好把下文中要进行分层论证的关键词结合到句子里面，比如上述例子中的coordinate ;exert their own advantages，可以起到引领下文，令文章结构严谨的作用。

第三种：背景开头+立场

Explosive development of science and technology has been made during the past one hundred years or so. When it comes to progress of the condition of humanity all over the world, there are always a host of different opinions held by different individuals from different areas. Have, you may wonder, the technology developments or innovations contributed to promoting our humanity? Admittedly, most people would consider that there are still so many troubles with us such as poverty, violence, conflicts and even wars. However, as a whole effect in general, technology progress has in fact, tend to lead to a significant promotion of the overall condition of humanity in the world.

第一步，先做背景引入，第二步提出自己的立场。这种开头方式的优点呢，是可以体现写作者的知识储备和语言水平，但是缺点是不如上述的两种方法简单易学，在做与题目相关的背景展开的时候容易落入俗套。所以，同学们在练习的时候需要选择适合自己的方法。

第四种：提问+立场

What are the limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction? The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make "extraordinary" efforts--at the expense of money and jobs--to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.

以问句的形式开头，然后表明自己立场的开头段可以体现出句式的变化，与传统的开头方式相比，比较有新意，想要尝试变化的同学可以多练习一下。

GRE写作ISSUE作文结尾段经典模板分享

接下来来看结尾段的经典模板。ISSUE的结尾段最大的作用就是起到结构完整的作用，加上答题时间有限，因此，结尾段不需要再花费额外的精力来提出新观点了，只需要对文章做一个结构上的总结就可以了。下面的2个结尾段的句式，同学们可以根据自己的喜好，将句子改写成自己的写作模板，切记对任何句子和范文不要原模原样照搬，防止发生雷同，造成成绩无效的严重后果。

第一种：总结结论+总结理由的方法

To sum up, given the reasons mentioned above, we may safely come to the conclusion that…. not only because…, but also because…, but it depends on...

第二种：回顾题目立场+再次确认自己立场

In sum, I concede that….Nonetheless, to some extent…, the speaker's claim overrates/underrates the importance of sth…. In the final analysis, the optimal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that ….

以上就是为大家分享的GRE写作ISSUE作文经典开头和结尾模板，希望大家在参考学习的基础上总结出适合自己的写作模板，在考试中结合模板和平时练习成果，写出高分作文，取得理想成绩。

TIPS：GRE ISSUE作文满分评分标准

In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.

A typical paper in this category exhibits the following characteristics:

1.articulates a clear and insightful position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task

2.develops the position fully with compelling reasons and/or persuasive examples

3.sustains a well-focused, well-organized analysis, connecting ideas logically

4.conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety

5.demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English(i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), but may have minor errors

——————————————————————————————————

Issue-101. Althoughinnovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schoolsimproved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too oftendistract from real learning.

 

——————————————————————————————————————————

满分范文赏析

 

Nowadays there isa growing concern in regards to the role of innovations in education. Whilemost people think that innovations benefit learning process in various ways,actually, technology too often distracts students from real learning. To befair, I cannot argue that technology distracts from learning. Technology is atool and it can it can be used effectively or ineffectively.

【此段结构】   第一句话简介了与题目有关的背景；第二句话分析了题目；第三四句作者提出了自己的看法，他/她不认为技术教学手段会使学生分心，而是作为一种工具，可以被有效或无效地利用。  

【此段功能】   分析题目背景，提出作者观点。  

 

To begin with,technological innovations do help teaching and learning in various ways. Withthe aid of these technologies, the process of teaching and learning can beshorter and easier than before. For instance, if a student wants certainpublished papers of an academic discipline, he or she may look through a considerablenumber of catalogs to find the desired works. However, the Internet providesaccess to a world of published information all at the tip of a keystroke. Thisnew approach can save a lot of time for the students and could lend more time forreading the papers and absorbing the knowledge rather than searching for it.This example aptly illustrates how technology advancement benefited thestudents and their learning process.

【此段结构】   总分总结构。第一句话是本段中心，提示读者这一段是围绕着技术手段在教学中起到的积极作用进行讨论。接下来的句子用一个事例作为支持，讲述技术创新如何让学生们在查找资料是更方便了。尾句总结本段，重申技术进步给学生的学习过程带来益处。   

【此段功能】   论点一，解释技术手段如何对学习起到帮助。  

 

Secondly, whileinnovations can help learning in various ways, it is more important to rememberwhy we are trying to learn. What really matters is not the approach but thepurpose of learning. In India, where modern technologies are less applied tothe learning process than in the US and other developed countries, there are stillmany distinguished students achieving their academic goals with their hard workand desires to knowledge. What this indicates is that while technology cancertainly make us more efficient, we can still achieve our goals without it. Inthe US, where the software engineering students are given the most advancedfacilities and apparatus for their learning and research, it is wildly acceptedthese students are far less outstanding compared to the Indian students ofsoftware, who may share computers in groups. There may be a number of reasonsfor this occurrence but one reason may be in how the students use thetechnology. In India, for example, because the computer is a limited resource,perhaps time spent on the computer is used more efficiently whereas for theAmerican student, the computer is taken for granted and they spend more timelooking at funny pictures on Imgur.com.

【此段结构】   前两句总领全段，指出技术创新是达到学习目的的工具和手段，不应因为它而忘记学习的初衷。接下来作者用印度和美国的软件工程专业学生利用计算机学习的情形做对比，举例说明了如何用技术手段达成学习目的取决于学生如何用它，而非技术本身。   

【此段功能】   论点二，技术创新的成果是学习的方式，是为了达成学习目的的手段。  

 

If not guidedproperly, the technology might inhibit learning. In other words, technology cancertainly distract the students from real learning instead of helping them. Itis obvious that a computer can help students of science to calculatemathematical equations but can also be used for recreation such as net surfingor computer games. It is highly possible that these students can spend moretime and energy on recreations rather than learning when using a computer.Thus, learning is inhibited. Under this circumstance, guidance and restrictionsare needed to ensure the correct use of technology for the purpose of enrichingthe learning experience.

【此段结构】   同样是总分结构，作者在前两句提出本段围绕的话题，技术手段可能会分散学生的注意力，影响学习，如果利用不当的话。第三句起举例说明了计算机可以帮学生解决数学问题的同时也可以是学生上网和玩游戏的工具，如果学生或大量时间用计算机做娱乐活动，那么可能会影响学习。最后一句得出结论，在这样的情况下，如何利用技术手段需要指导。   

【此段功能】   论点三，技术手段如果利用不当，可能会影响学习。  

 

To conclude,technological innovations are beneficial to learning but when using thesetechnologies, one should not forget the real purpose of learning. If the userremembers to focus on his or her work, that will make all the difference in thelearning outcome. In the end, the argument is totally dependent on the studentsand the teachers using the technologies in question.

【此段结构】   第一句话指出技术手段对学习是有帮助的，但是人们在使用时不应忘记学习的目的。第二句话补充指出在使用技术手段时，学生将关注点放在学习上，才会产生积极的学习效果。第三句总结到技术手段对学习的影响积极与否取决于人们如何利用它。   

【此段功能】   总结全文，重申作者观点。  

 

——————————————————————————————————————————

满分要素剖析

 

一、语言表达
本文作者并没有使用过多的复杂语法和词汇表达，但是清楚流畅地阐明了他/她对本题的看法。作者的语法应用准确，文章中也可见到一些地道的语言表达，可以看出作者平常对英语语言积累的重视。

 

1.To be fair, Icannot argue that technology distracts from learning. 本句开头的to be fair是一个固定搭配，表示公平地说，平心而论。作者在表达自己观点时用到这个短语，使语言更严谨。

 

2.However, theInternet provides access to a world of published information all at the tip ofa keystroke. 这句话末尾的at the tip of a keystroke用的很生动，它表示简单地敲敲键盘，就可以在网上搜到大量的信息，keystroke就是击键、按键的意思，比直接使用打字type或者输入input等词要更有动感。

 

3.Secondly, whileinnovations can help learning in various ways, it is more important to rememberwhy we are trying to learn. 这句话用到了it作为形式主语的用法，代替后面真正的主语，不定式to remember…to learn，保持句子的平衡感。

 

4.…whereas for theAmerican student, the computer is taken for granted and they spend more timelooking at funny pictures on Imgur.com. 作者在这句话中提到一个网站，imgur.com，这是一个著名的图片网站，如作者所说，有很多funny pictures。提到这个，会给母语为英语的批改者带来亲切感，也说明作者对英语世界的一些生活有所了解。

 

二、逻辑结构
通过这篇作文可以看出，作者的观点是不认为技术会像题中所说那样使学生分心，技术作为学习工具，对学习效果的影响可好可坏，取决于人们如何使用它。在总分总的结构下，作者提出了三个论点来支持自己的观点。首先，作者指出技术手段可以对学习产生积极影响。接下来，作者认为重点不在技术本身，而是要认识到技术只是学习方式，是达到学习目的的手段。第三个论点是技术手段使用不当会影响学习效果。这三个论点完整地支持了作者的论述。

 

　"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."

　　这个题目分析起来是说学术目的的。作为一个scholar/researcher应该考虑的是自己的感兴趣的领域所在而不是考虑是不是他们的研究成果是对整个大社会大环境有贡献的。这个题目第一眼看起来好象似乎是有理的，但是想到很多时候很多科学家的成果实际是无意义的。美国不是有一个搞笑诺贝尔奖吗?就是奖励类似的研究的。虽然也是科学成果但是根本就没有实际操作的价值或者对人类或者对社会根本就没有意义的。

　　但是这个contribution在某些时候也可以引申到名利方面。从这个方面来讲，这个题目是可以成立的。

　　对这个题目进行进一步的分析，可以看出来题目里面有一个比较，非常明显的比较，more来带出来的，所以我们可以说这个speaker的观点是很明显的表明了自己是支持哪个方面的。

　　Should academic scholars and researchers be free to pursue whatever avenues of inquiry and research that interest them, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic, as the speaker asserts? Or should they strive instead to focus on those areas that are most likely to benefit society?

　　拿问句来起头，来质疑。脱离出了一般的解释题目的开头。虽然不是特别特别，但是还是让人感觉比较的attractive。l strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons.非常直白的陈述自己的观点，同意speaker的观点。

　　First of all,典型的连接词，开始陈述观点了。Who is to decide which areas of academic inquiry are worth while?又是一个问句，但是这个问句的作用和开篇的问句不同了，是引出来自己论证的第一个方面。Scholars cannot be left to decide.自问自答。

　　Given a choice they will pursue their own idiosyncratic areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all scholars could reach a fully informed consensus as to what research areas would be most worthwhile. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what would be worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence renders them untrustworthy in any event.

　　两个否定句非常干净利索的说出作者的看法，没人有能力来决定什么是应该worth researching的。

　　Secondly, by human nature we are motivated to pursue those activities in which we excel. To compel scholars to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today's preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking——霍金我想就不用介绍了吧—— to research the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing workplace discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole(夸张法).Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world's scholars and researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation, a scholar would be unlikely to contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field of study.

　　这个部分举例说明了，如果把学者或者科学家局限于某个特定的领域内的话会也会局限其施展自己的talents，是资源的浪费。而缺少动力或者兴趣，人也无法完全发挥自己的talents用辨证的方法说出interest和contribution二者的关系。

　　Thirdly, it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenues of inquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. Avenues of intellectual and scientific inquiry that break no new ground amount to wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with unusual claims by scholars and researchers that turned out stunningly significant——that the sun lies at the center of our universe, that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of unusual research is terraforming——creating biological life and habitable atmospheres where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society's pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?

---

Argument：掌握逻辑

　　Argument要求考生分析所给题目，完成一篇驳论文，指出并且有力地驳斥题目中的主要逻辑错误。Argument部分，首先要熟悉每一个题目，找出主要的逻辑错误，也就是Argument题目的提纲，同时每一个逻辑错误准备一套语言套路去说。写完每一个题目的提纲后，写10-15篇完整的文章(语言能力弱的话，可以增加写作量)，找partner帮你改，知道错误以后再重写。

　　有些考生写GRE文章，喜欢用专业性的逻辑用语，其实没有必要，就事论事比较好。在批驳的时候为了显得有力，可以多用用for example、it is possible that、it is likely that之类的句型，因为Argument就是挑错与找茬的过程。如果实在觉得错误不好找，那么就根据每一句话批，基本上，每一个表示原因的句子中都可能存在逻辑错误。

　　有人认为，Argument背一下错误分类就可以了。但是在实践中这些只是次要的方面，主要的还在于寻找论述者的论据和事实是否对论点做了充分且必要的证明。只有找出他们之间的缺点和不足,文章才会流畅。掌握逻辑的因果关系，更好地把握文章的结论,会写出更漂亮的文章，而不是仅仅的survey、response、data等一些谁都用的东西，无论什么都是越具体越有说服力。

　　难度： Issue>Argument

　　总的来看，Issue难度高于Argument。对于考生来说，Issue比Argument要求拥有更扎实的写作功底和更严密的逻辑思维。同时，ETS对于Issue的模板化和plagiarisms更加敏感。总之，获得Issue高分需要较多的努力。相比之下，Argument内容相对单一(出错的逻辑类型比较少)，题目中给了考生更多的提示信息，因此提高Argument成绩容易一些。

　　参照ETS评过分的范文，我们不难发现：无论Issue还是Argument在评分标准上都有共同之处：第一，观点要有深度，论证要有说服力;第二，组织要有条理，表达清晰准确;第三，语言流利，句式复杂，词汇丰富。这三条说的也就是行文的“思想性”、“结构性”以及“表达性”。众多高分作文的考生大凡都在这三个方面做得很好，我们理所当然也要从这里入手，采取“各个击破”的方法解剖GRE作文的本质，从而得到一个理想分数。

　　以上就是新GRE作文Issue和Argument的区别以及GRE写作技巧介绍，各位考生在进行GRE作文备考时可以采取各个击破的方法，分别进行攻克，争取拿到GRE写作高分。

——————————————————————————————————————

ARGUMENT 模板

　　1．开头

　　·In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that ．．．

　　·To justify the claim, the author points out that．．．

　　·The author also cites that ．．．．

　　·Close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects．

　　2．中间三段过渡词

　　·First and foremost, ．．．

　　·In addition, ．．．

　　·Finally, ．．．

　　3．结尾

　　·In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading．

　　·To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to substantiate that ．．．and that ．．．．

　　·Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the author can provide more information about （why．．．and whether．．．）．

　　4．survey

　　·The survey must be showed to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion the author reaches based upon it．

　　·However, the arguer fails to prove that the responses are accurate or that the respondents are statistically significant in number．

　　·Additionally, whether the sample is representative enough to reflect the overall attitudes in terms of ．．．deserves to doubt．

　　·Without evidence of the survey's reliability, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion about ．．．based on the survey．

　　5．false analogy

　　·Even assuming that (别的)．．．are/is attributed to the implementation of ．．．, the author commits a false analogy in assuming that by the same means AAA will achieve the same result as BBB dose．

　　·The arguer fails to consider possible differences between AAA and BBB, which might help to bring about a different result for AAA．

　　·In fact, it is entirely possible that ．．．

　　·Perhaps ．．． Or perhaps ．．．

　　·Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities any analogy between the two ．．．is premature and the arguer can not assume that ．．．would bring about the same result in XX as ．．．did．

　　6．他因

　　·The argument unfairly claims that AAA is the result of BBB-rather than some other phenomenon．

　　·The arguer ignores a host of other possible reasons for AAA．

　　·Perhaps CCC． Or perhaps DDD．

　　·In short, without ruling out all other possible explanations for AAA, the author cannot convince me that by xBBB ．．． -let alone ．．．

　　·或者 Since the article fails to account for this alternative explanation for AAA, the article's author cannot make any sound inference (recommendations to ．．．) based on AAA．

　　7．Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

　　·The author commits a fallacy of "Post (Cum) hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that BBB is the very cause of AAA．

　　·Although BBB occurred before (at the same time with) AAA, the only evidence is insufficient to prove a causal relationship．

　　·In order to establish a general causal relationship between BBB and AAA, other factors that might lead to AAA should be considered and eliminated．

　　·For example, CCC or DDD．

　　·The author's failure to investigate or even take into account other possible reasons for AAA renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect．

　　　8．解决途径

　　·Even if that … may to some extent help to solve the problems, there is still another problem with the argument that the author unfairly assumes that ．．．is the only means of achieving the desired result．

　　·The article's author overlooks other possible means of ensuring that ．．．-such as ．．．, ．．．, and so forth．

　　·Without weighing the proposal against and ruling out alternative means of achieving the same goal, the author cannot convince me that ．．．is needed．

　　9．局部结论用于整体

　　·The argument assumes that the AAA reflects (are representative of) the

　　general trend upon which the argument relies．

　　·Yet the author fails to give any evidence to justify this assumption．

　　·Perhaps ．．． Or perhaps ．．．

　　·In short, lacking evidence that AAA are typical in terms of ．．．the author cannot convince me that ．．．

　　10．整体规律用于个体或局部

　　·The nationwide study showing clear trends among two-income families toward dining out and eating healthily does not necessarily apply specifically to Bay City．

　　·It is quite possible that Bay City’s two-income families do not follow these general trends．

　　·For that matter, in Bay City the trend might be just the opposite．

　　·Thus, the nationwide trends that the argument cites Uamount to scant evidence U that Bay City residents in particular would frequent a new seafood restaurant in their city．

　　11．盈利问题

　　·Even if Bay City families flock to the new seafood restaurant, the restaurant would not necessarily be profitable as a result．

　　·Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense．

　　·Thus, it is entirely possible that the restaurant’s costs of obtainting high-quality, healthful seafood, or of promoting the new restaurant, might render it unprofitable despite its popularity．

　　·In short, without more information about supply, demand, production costs and revenue, it is impossible to determine whether the company can earn a profit from …

　　12．认为一切永恒不变

　　·The author's inference rests on the poor assumption that during ．．．the ．．．has remained unchanged．

　　·However, the arguer shows no evidence to support this assumption．

　　·It is entirely possible that ．．．or that ．．．

　　·Indeed, the fact that ．．．might actually portend failure for ．．．，which might need to ．．．

　　13．非此即彼

　　·The argument suffers from “either-or” reasoning．

　　·Based on the fact that Monroe town residents are opposed to Brown’s proposed tax cut, the author unfairly concludes that they must be in favor of Green’s proposal．

　　·However, the author overlooks the possibility that Monroe town residents are not in favor of either proposal．

　　14．对比实验问题

　　①要么U初态U不确定

　　②要么实验过程有U其他干扰因素

　　15．其他

　　·攻击后果

　　·调查信息不完整

　　·缺乏比较的错误

　　·自相矛盾

——————————————————————————————————————————————

In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.

A typical paper in this category exhibits the following characteristics:

1.clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully.

2.develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions.

3.provides compelling and thorough support for its main points.

4.conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety.

5.demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors.

评分标准解读

要点1：clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully

关键词：identifies important features, insightfully

1.identifies important features

即鉴别一篇Argument的逻辑漏洞和错误。 important一词说明考生无需指出原文所有的逻辑错误，只要发现主要的错误，并进行有理有据的批判即可。

2.insightfully

即Data Mining(数据挖掘)。GRE作文看重思辨,并且非常强调对于每个主要逻辑错误进行深入的“理性批判”。理性批判的意思是洞察和挖掘每一类逻辑错误“背后的逻辑原理”。 “insightful”要求考生从逻辑原理的层面来攻击每一类逻辑错误。

例如，在GRE Argument题库里调查(survey)类错误属于高频逻辑错误。考生在写文章的时候, 仅仅强调“此调查有问题，数据不真实，结论站不住脚”等，是非常肤浅的。 真正的“理性批判”是要从“统计学”原理出发来指出调查的问题。 例如从样本的“quantity”和“quality”两个角度来分析题中给出的调查。

1)"quantity"指样本数量。此攻击原理是“必须同时给出样本的绝对数量以及所占的相对比例”。 例如某题目中给出如下的调查数据：5万名被调查者建议取消公司的打卡制度。对于此题我们要看到题干中并未给出公司员工的总量： 如果总量很大，那么5万只占了很小的比例。 同样地，另一题中：99%被调查的学生认为作业量过大。对于此题我们依然要指出调查样本总量的问题：如果被调查学生的总量很小， 99%这一看似很高的比例也不能说明问题。

2)“quality”指样本质量。这也是调查类题目常见的一个错误点。 题库中大量的调查类问题都未指出样本选择是否随机(random)。如果不随机，这些样本的代表性(representativeness)无疑就被弱化了。

要点2：develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions

关键词：organizes them logically、connects、clear transitions

“GRE写作的逻辑”包含形式逻辑和内容逻辑: 形式逻辑就是指文章起承转合的逻辑信号、逻辑连接词。它们连接不同的内容,使行文显得有层次。内容逻辑就是指文章含义推导过程的严密性，和我们后文即将解读的排序方式是高度相关的。

organizes them logically是本条评分标准的核心。 在GRE Argument写作里，只找到各类逻辑错误(find problems)是不够的。评分标准还要求我们很好地组织这些错误(organize the problems which you have found)。 只找到逻辑错误而没有将其组织好是无法拿到满分甚至高分的。

通常，考生可以运用三种“排序方式”来组织逻辑错误，即顺序排序、主次排序和让步排序。

1)顺序排序--即按照各类错误在原文中出现的顺序进行攻击;

2)主次排序--即按照逻辑错误的主次顺序来排序，此种排序方式相比顺序排序更为合理;

3)让步排序--最逻辑化的排序方式：首先攻击A错误不成立;其次在攻击B错误不成立之前，假定即便A成立，B仍然不成立;最后引出即便A、B均成立，还可以得到C不成立。 这样的“organization”显示了强大的逻辑思辨能力。

因此，GRE作文考试要求考生不仅仅零散地找到几个逻辑错误，而且要合理地组织逻辑错误的呈现顺序,让文章的段落之间连贯一致，浑然一体。

要点3：provides compelling and thorough support for its main points

关键词：compelling and thorough support, main points

1. compelling and thorough support

这一点要求考生在指出原文逻辑错误的同时，提供有说服力的论证和论据。 关于论证，上文中提到的“理性批判”就是强有力的“support”。关于argument写作中的论据，与issue不同的是，考生不需要进行发散举例，只需要用合理的理由来阐释自己的反驳观点。例如考生指出原文的错误是A和B之间没有因果关系，即A不是B的原因，则需要阐释B真正的原因是什么;再例如，若考生指出原文中A和B不能进行类比，则需要指出哪些差异导致它们不能构成类比关系--此类论据才可称得上是有力的“support”。

2. main points

此条标准与上文中第一条评分标准，即identifies important features，非常一致，强调鉴别一篇驳论文的重要特征以及主要逻辑漏洞。

要点4：conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety

关键词：effective，variety

1. effective

有效的--所谓有效的词汇，是指根据语境所选择“恰当的用词”。 在GRE写作里考生不需要哗众取宠地用“大词、难词”来显示词汇量。 真正的高手能够用简单而精确的词语来阐述深刻的道理。

2. variety

用词用句的变化性能有效地体现行文语言的多样性。

要点5：demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors

关键词：standard written English, may have minor errors

1. standard written English

即使用标准的书面英语。英语口语体不合适用于GRE这类准学术型的分析性写作中。因此考生应注意标准的书面英语的语法，用词和文法。

2. may have minor errors

GRE作文允许有错误的存在。 考官认为，一篇满分的文章可以有错误，尤其是个别的拼写错误、语法错误和用词不当。这不影响一篇文章得高分。只要这篇文章准确地提炼了要点、做到了精确的对应匹配、逻辑性强、语言水平高即可。

以上就是GRE ARGUMENT作文的评分标准和分析解读，希望大家能够参照上文内容，对自己的作文备考工作进行完善，做好充分准备，争取在考试中写出高分满分的优秀ARGU作文。

TIPS：写GRE作文几大禁忌

1. GRE作文不能写很口语化的表达，因为这是学术性写作，口语化会显得你词汇掌握不足，无法区分书面用语和口头用语

2. 不能千篇一律的短句或者散句，而要长短结合，主次分明。

3. 同一词汇不要反复使用。要在文章中体现出自己的词汇量。在遇到重复概念的时候不能反复使用同一个词汇来表达，多使用意思相近的其他词汇或表达方式，会让文章更加多彩。

Arg-101

 

Thefollowing appeared in a newspaper feature story:

 

"Thereis now evidence that the relaxed manner of living in small towns promotesbetter health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in bigcities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sickleave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large MasonCity. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousandresidents, but in Mason City the proportion of physicians to residents is fivetimes as high. And the average age of Leeville residents is significantlyhigher than that of Mason City residents. These findings suggest that peopleseeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities."

 

————————————————————————————————————————

满分范文赏析

 

This newspaper story concludes that living in a smalltown promotes health and longevity. The speaker bases the conclusion on acomparison between the small town of Leeville and nearby Mason City, a largertown. While the argument appears valid enough at first glance, a closer lookreveals a few distinct weaknesses.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E- F的开头结构，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)。

【此段功能】

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：住在小城镇会提高健康水平和寿命。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：对小城镇Leeville和大城市MasonCity的对比，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。

 

One initial problem with the argument is that the authordraws conclusion about the effect of a town's size on the health and longevityof its residents but doesn’t really present any evidence.  There are a lot of indications that theresidents of one town are healthier but the speaker doesn’t indicate why.  More specifically, the only evidencepresented here is the pace of life.  Thisdoes very little to establish requisite links.

【此段结构】

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原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：因果类错误（无原因）。作者认为原文只提出了“小城镇居民比大城市居民健康长寿”这一现象，但是没有indicate why。这样法人为城镇大小对健康状况和寿命产生因果关系。

 

Next, the author cites the fact that the incidence ofsick leave in Leeville is less than in Mason City. This evidence would lendsupport to the argument only if the portion of local residents employed bylocal businesses were nearly the same in both towns, and only if the portion ofemployees who are local residents were nearly the same in both towns. Ofcourse, in a more densely populated area with more people, the incidence ofsomething like sick leave would be higher. Without offering a per-capita rate,one cannot come to the conclusion that the rate is higher or lower in eithercase.

【此段结构】

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原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误类比。对于原文中对两城市sick leave的比较，作者应当建立在两城市对本地居民的录用率相同，已经雇员中本地居民的比例相同这两个前提下。原文缺乏对这些前提的说明，所以不能从sick leave比较中得到结论。

 

The author also cites the fact that Mason City has fivetimes as many physicians. However, any number of factors besides the health ofthe towns' residents might explain this disparity. For example, perhaps peoplein the city are concerned with cosmetic issues rather than health matters.Without ruling out such explanations, these physician-resident ratios provenothing about the comparative health of Leeville and Mason City residents.

【此段结构】

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原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

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（忽略他因）。作者认为Mason City physician数量是Leeville的五倍可能是其他原因造成的，例如concerned with cosmetic issues rather than health matters(关注化妆品胜于关注健康)。吐过在没有排除他因干扰，physician数量说明不了什么。

 

Finally, the author cites the fact that the average age ofLeeville residents is higher than that of Mason City residents. However, anynumber of factors might explain this disparity. For example, perhaps Leevilleis a retirement community, while Mason City attracts younger working people.For that matter, perhaps Leeville is comprised mainly of former Mason Cityresidents whose longevity is attributable chiefly to their former life-style inMason City. In any event, the author cannot justify the conclusion that thisdisparity in average age has anything to do with the healthy benefits or lackthereof in either city.

【此段结构】

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原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第四段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误类比。作者认为“Leeville”居民平均寿命比Mason City居民长”之一现象，可能是由其他因素造成的。作者给出了这样一个假设：Leeville是retirement community，而Mason City attractsyounger working people（吸引年年轻的工人）。也许Leeville的居民好多都是来自Mason City的，那么

 

In conclusion, the argument that small-town livingpromotes good health and longevity based on the examples above is not verypersuasive. However, it seems like a sensible one that one should considertrying to strengthen. The argument could be improved if the author providedclearer connections between his examples of health and of the causes of suchhealthy examples.  More specifically, ifhe could prove that there was a very specific attribute in one place or theother that effected health, the argument would be far more convincing.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即：C – S的结尾结构，首先再次重申原文的站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出给合理建议Suggestion。

【此段功能】

本段作为Argument结尾段，具体功能就总结归纳+建议措施，首先再次重申：原文“住在小城镇会提高健康水平和寿命”这一论断是没有说服力的。接下来作者给出几条建议：作者需要在health example和cause of health example之间建立逻辑联系，就是要提出影响居民健康的具体因素。这几条建议含蓄的隐射前面的错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。

 

 

满分因素剖析

 

【语言表达】

本文的语言使用规范、清晰，词汇也用得准确地道，并使用多变的句式让考官读起来津津有味，这些都是GRE写作官方的语言要求。同时，文章的结构型语言和内容型语言相得益彰，结构是骨架，内容是血肉，二者完美结合。

 

1. This newspaper story concludes that...（标志性的argument首段开头，引出原文的conclusion） The speaker bases the conclusion on ... （标志性的语句，引出支持原文conclusion的evidence）. While the argumentappears valid enough at first glance, a closer look reveals a few distinctweaknesses. （标志性的首段结尾，通过让步语句，点出文章存在Flaw）整体开头段是标准的C-E-F的语言和逻辑模版体系。

 

2. Finally, theauthor cites the fact that ...(标志性的论证段开头，提出原文错误的地方)However, any number of factors might explain this disparity. （标志性的argument语句，用于类比错误，提出其他可能性的存在）Forexample, perhaps ... while... (标志性的语句，用来提出对比的两个事物所具有的其他方面的可能性，用于类比错误) Forthat matter, perhaps ... In any event, the author cannot justify the conclusionthat ... （标志性的论证段结尾，总结上文的错误）

 

3. Inconclusion, the argument that ... is not very persuasive(标志性的结尾段开头，再次点出原文的conclusion存在错误).However, it seems like a sensible one that one should consider trying tostrengthen. The argument could be improved if the author provided ...  More specifically, if he could prove that... ,the argument would be far more convincing.(标志性的argument结尾段，用于提出合理化suggestion)

 

【逻辑结构】

本文是非常严谨的开头段-正文段1-正文段2--正文段3-正文段4-结尾段的的五段论逻辑体系。开头段按照C-E-F的逻辑结构，顺利引出后文的分析。论证段中，从提出错误，到分析错误，到给出可能性，最后总结错误，层次清晰，衔接自然。结尾段总结全文，重申错误，给出合理化建议。这样一篇文章从开头到结尾逻辑严谨，内容清晰，圆满的完成了论证的作用。

正文段的第四段写得很出彩，首先In conclusion, the argument thatsmall-town living promotes good health and longevity based on the examplesabove is not very persuasive.指出了错误观点以及错误观点依据的证据。接下来，However, any number of factors might explain this disparity.作者提出可能有其他可能性造成这一现象。For example, perhaps Leeville is aretirement community, while ... For that matter, perhaps ... 作者提出了一种假设并对后果进行了分析，从而反驳了原文的结论。In any event, the author cannotjustify the conclusion that this disparity in average age has anything to dowith the healthy benefits or lack thereof in either city.

最后作者再次重申原文中的错误。此段按照提出错误，分析错误，给出可能性，总结错误的结构，层次清晰，衔接自然。

——————————————————————————————————————————

2018GRE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。

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

GRE满分作文北美范文全揭秘。学习GMAT/GRE写作往往离不开“北美范文”，但其中良莠不齐，并非篇篇能称之为“范”，毕竟它们不是ACT/ETS所钦定的文章。如此说来，Official Guide上的范文就弥足珍贵，无论6分的还是5分、4分的都要仔细分析，尤其是其中所给与的分析和评论更是要细细体味，领悟其精神，然后用心实践。

　　下面是一篇官方给出满分的ARGUMENT范文，我们来一起赏析，看看它为何能scored six (先读文章，再看我的点评)

　　The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:

　　"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

　　Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

　　GRE首段

　　This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Howeveer, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn\'t necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.

　　GRE中间段1

　　The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.

　　GRE中间段2

　　This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.

　　GRE中间段3

　　Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.

　　GRE末端

　　In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e。， coal mine)。 Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.

　　GRE这篇官方钦定满分的范文，其最明显的优点在于：

　　1. 字数高达599words, GRE充分体现了字数为王的判分倾向。

　　2. 标准的五段制，首段、GRE末端，中间三段，看上去很美。

　　3. 没有陈词滥调、GRE满篇废话的模板式语言。

　　只有以上三点离满分还是很远的，GRE之所以SIX，我看更重要的在于，每段各尽其责，既独立又统一，形成了完整的ARGUMENT，specifically:

　　1. 首段再现了原TOPIC的推理过程，GRE并指出其assumptions多有不适;尤其令阅卷人高兴的是：首段在最后简化罗列了推理中的三个问题。要知道美国人就喜欢的作文---总分式，在首段就把三个ideas罗列出来，然后在中间三段分别展开，先总后分，一目了然。

　　2. 中一的TS -- “The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment.”可谓是一针见血，一剑封喉。对于这样严重的推理漏洞，如果不首先指出，其argument必然软弱乏力。此所谓Topic中的 “必削点”，不可不察。

　　3. 中二的TS – “This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment.”这可谓是剑走偏锋，独辟蹊径，出人所料。文章竟然批评了Topic以钱为本经营理念，提出了要以人为本，这样写是有一定风险，毕竟这不是Issue。

　　那本文是如何化险为夷的呢?且看本段最后一句“this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.”我不由得长舒一口，人家再次回归了，又回到了Topic中以“Money”为本的推理。

　　4. 中三的TS – “Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer.”这充分体现了作者不只是坐而论道的arguer，而是关心其可行性的现实主义者，考虑到方案本身的可行性和局限性。

　　5. 末端不但对首段提出的论点做出了重复性的总结，GRE而且又不厌其烦地把中间三段的ideas一一罗列。如此“啰嗦”估计令某些同学略有不齿，但这恰恰是美国人的最爱，cultural shock了吧?