小站整理2021-03-08 13:36:48


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。下面小编会为大家带来ARGUMENT题库高频作文题目的满分范文赏析:All students should be required to take the driver's education course at...


The following appeared in a letter to the school board in the town of Centerville:

"All students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years, several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.


This letter recommends mandatory driver's education courses at Centerville High School based on three facts: during the last two years several Centerville car accidents have involved teenage drivers, Centerville parents are too busy to teach driving to their children, and the two private driver-education courses in the area are unaffordable. The argument suffers from several critical flaws. Let us look a more deeply.


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:信中推荐Centerville(后面简称C)高中进行强制driver's education。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的三个证据:过去两年有几起青少年的交通事故,C地区父母没时间教孩子开车,当地两个驾驶课程很难负担的起。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误,引出后面的分析。

First of all, while teenagers were involved in accidents, it is unclear whether or not these individuals were Centerville High School students. Even if they were students responsible for causing the accidents, could those accidents have been avoided had these students enrolled in the high school's driving course? Without knowing the contributing factors to the accidents themselves, there is no way to determine which driver was at fault and/or how a driver-training course could have altered the events. The author should gather more information about the accidents upon which the argument is founded.




本段作为正文第一段,攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误:论据模糊。作者认为原文没有交代青少年交通中事故是否有C高中的学生。接下来作者提出让步,即便有C高中的学生,不能说明驾驶课程可以avoid accident。作者认为,如果不知道事故的原因,是无法说明司机有错误以及驾驶课程会减少事故的。

The argument is problematic in certain other respects as well. It assumes that a mandatory school-sponsored course would be effective yet provides no evidence to support this assumption. For example, is there a report on all of the schools which have adopted similar programs which indicates that, as a result of training accident rates have always gone, invariably, down?





In conclusion, the speaker fails to adequately support the recommendation for a school-sponsored mandatory driving course. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear evidence that the accidents did indeed involve Centerville High School students and that their careless driving was the primary contributing factor in the occurrence of the accidents. To better evaluate the argument, an audience would need more information about the affordability of the two private driving courses and about the effectiveness of a mandatory school-sponsored course compared to that of the two private courses.


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。

下载小站GRE APP,刷GRE真题



查看更多公开课 >