GRE作文考试最大的特点,便是GRE题库的公开,所有gre考试中可能会出现的作文题目,都已经事先公布在ETS的GRE官网上。尽管考题公开透明,但庞大的题量,对于想要做好充分准备的考生来说,仍然算得上是巨大的挑战。为了方便广大考生准备GRE作文,小站为大家整理了针对题库中ARGUMENT类文章题目的满分范文,包含详细的逐段讲解和满分要素剖析,相信能给大家提供一些帮助。

2018GRE作文ARGUMENT官方题库满分范文点评:Omega University... gre作文 gre官网 gre考试 GRE冲刺  第1张

2018GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目:

The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.

“Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors.”

【满分范文赏析】

In this memo Omega University’s dean points out that Omega graduates are less successful in getting jobs than Alpha University graduates, despite the fact that during the past 15 years the overall grade average of Omega students has risen by 30%. The dean indicates that during the past 15 years Omega has encouraged its studentsto evaluate the effectiveness of their professors. The dean reasons that student evaluations led professors to increase grades, which has, in turn, created a perception among employers that the grades of Omega graduates are not actually representative of their real quality. The dean concludes that to enable Omega graduates enjoy better job placement, the university must terminate its professor-evaluation procedure. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several flaws in logic.

【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一系列evidence,最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句,指出原文在逻辑上含有多处Flaw。

【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:为了让其毕业生获得更好的工作,Omega大学应该现在停止学生评估教授的程序。本段分布列举了原文为支持其结论所引用的证据——尽管在过去15年内Omega学生的总平均成绩提高了30%,Omega大学的毕业生在就业时不如Alpha大学的毕业生成功、学生对教授的评估导致教授提高成绩,进而使雇主们产生Omega毕业生的成绩不能代表他们的真实品质这一印象等等。这些信息的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作铺垫。

One problem with the argument is that the current evaluation process is not a mandatory one and the deandoesn’t state how many people participated. The dean provides no evidence about the number of students or percentage of the study body who participate in the procedure. Without such evidence,drawing a link between the evaluation of professors and their grading trends is not possible. Without such a link, an audience cannot be expected to accept that the termination of the above-mentioned evaluation would, in fact, have any effect on grading.

【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——调查类错误。本段指出学校现有的评估过程不是强制性的,院长也没有说明有多少人参与了调查。院长没有对参与这一程序的学生人数或在学生群体中所占的百分比提供证据。如果没有这样的证据,是不可能建立学生对教授的评估和教授的评分趋势之间的联系的。如果没有如此联系,不能指望观众接受学生对教授的评估的终止将对教授的评分产生任何影响这一论断。

The argument is based on the assumption that the grade-average increase is somehow related to the evaluation procedurerather than some other phenomenon. The dean ignores a host of other possible explanations for the increase. For example, a trend at Omega toward higher admission standards, or higher quality instruction or facilities could have produced the increased grades. Without ruling out this or other possible explanations for the grade-average increase, the dean cannot expect to convince an audience that by terminating the evaluation procedure Omega would curb its perceived grade inflation, let alone help its graduates get jobs.

【本段结构】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】本段作为正文第二段,攻击原文中出现的第二个重要逻辑错误——忽略他因。原文假设平均成绩的提升是以某种方式和评估的程序而不是某种其它的现象联系起来的。院长忽视了诸多于这一成绩提升的其它可能解释。例如,Omega录取学生标准提高的趋势或高质量的教学和设施均可能导致了成绩的提升。本段最后指出:院长在没有排除这些其它可能导致平均成绩提升的解释之前,是不能指望说服观众Omega大学停止其评估程序将抑制其成绩通胀,更不用提将帮助其毕业生找到工作了。

Even if the evaluation procedure has resulted in grade inflation at Omega, the dean’s claim that grade inflation explains why Omega graduates are less successful than Alpha graduates in getting jobs is unjustified. The dean overlooks a myriad of other possible reasons for Omega’s comparatively poor job-placement record. Perhaps Omega’s career services are inadequate.Perhaps Omega’s curriculum does not prepare students for the job market as effectively as Alpha’s. In short, without the true results of a comparative analysis, there is no way we can determine that this is why graduates have been less successfully placed.

【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——忽略他因。即使评估程序导致了Omega学生的成绩通胀,院长关于为什么Omega的毕业生在就业时没有Alpha的毕业生成功的论断也不能被证明正确。院长忽视了种种其它可能导致Omega就业情况记录较差的原因。或许Omega的职业服务不适当,或许Omega的课程不能像Alpha的课程那样有效地为学生们的就业做准备。本段最后指出:如果没有一个比较分析的真实结果,我们无从决定这就是毕业生就业并不成功的理由。

Even if the dean can prove the assumptions, his assertion that Omega must terminate its evaluation procedure to enable its graduates to find better jobs is still unwarranted. First, the dean ignores other ways that Omega could potentially increase its job-placement record. For example, by improving its public relations or career-counseling services, the university may be able to gain a better reputation and deliver better potential employees. Second, the dean seems to equate “more” jobs with “better” jobs—there is no analysis of the jobs that Alpha graduates were placed in. In other words, even if more Omega graduates were able to find jobs as a result of the dean’s recommended course of action, the kinds of jobs Omega graduates find would not necessarily be better ones.

【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——因果类错误。即使院长能够证实前述假设,他关于Omega必须停止其评估程序以使其毕业生找到更好的工作的断言依然是无根据的。首先,院长忽视了Omega可以潜在地提高其就业记录的方式,例如改善其公共关系或职业咨询服务等。其次,院长似乎将“更多的”工作和“更好的”工作划等号,也没有对Alpha的毕业生所处的工作进行分析。换而言之,即使院长所建议的行动促使更多的Omega毕业生能够找到工作,他们所找到的工作的种类也并不一定是更好的。

热搜词