新GRE分析性写作Arguement官方范文
更新时间:2023-09-15 06:40:01 阅读量: 资格考试认证 文档下载
- gre分析性写作几分推荐度:
- 相关推荐
新GRE教辅系列 Serial Textbooks on the GRE Revised General Test Argument官方范文 Sample Responses of Argument 适用于2011年8月后实行的机考 Compatible with the Computer-based Test applied after Aug. 2011
In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is therefore sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities. 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 the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Note: All responses are reproduced exactly as written, including errors, misspellings, etc., if any.
Essay Response – Score 6
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long,
with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
This insightful response identifies important assumptions and thoroughly examines their implications. The proposal to spend more on riverside recreational facilities rests on three questionable assumptions, namely:
?that the survey provides a reliable basis for budget planning
?that the river?s pollution and odor are the only reasons for its limited recreational
use
?that efforts to clean the water and remove the odor will be successful
By showing that each assumption is highly suspect, this essay demonstrates the weakness of the entire argument. For example, paragraph 2 points out that the survey might not have used a representative sample, might have offered limited choices, and might have contained very few questions on water sports.
Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and limited use of the river for recreation. Complaints about water quality and odor may be coming from only a few people and, even if such complaints are numerous, other completely different factors may be much more significant in reducing river usage. Finally, paragraph 4 explains that certain geologic features may prevent effective river clean-up. Details such as these provide compelling support.
In addition, careful organization ensures that each new point builds upon the previous ones. For example, note the clear transitions at the beginning of paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the logical sequence of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).
Although this essay does contain minor errors, it still conveys ideas fluently. Note the effective word choices (e.g., “rife with… assumptions” and “may have swayed residents”). In addition, sentences are not merely varied; they also display skillful embedding of subordinate elements. For example, note the sustained parallelism in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph.
Since this response offers cogent examination of the argument and conveys
meaning skillfully, it earns a score of 6.
正在阅读:
高中数学电子书——函数极限的运算规则02-20
论新闻媒体对公安的作用05-01
职校与产业园区公共实训基地建设合作协议(参考范本)082004-08
《计算机应用基础》题库(十)及答案分析12-02
2015年初级药师考试真题汇析 - 图文03-20
学校食堂规章制度及处罚措施03-03
- 梳理《史记》素材,为作文添彩
- 2012呼和浩特驾照模拟考试B2车型试题
- 关于全面推进施工现场标准化管理实施的通知(红头文件)
- 江西省房屋建筑和市政基础设施工程施工招标文件范本
- 律师与公证制度第2阶段练习题
- 2019-2020年最新人教版PEP初三英语九年级上册精编单元练习unit6训练测试卷内含听力文件及听力原文
- 小升初数学模拟试卷(十四) 北京版 Word版,含答案
- 认识创新思维特点 探讨创新教育方法-精选教育文档
- 00266 自考 社会心理学一(复习题大全)
- 多媒体在语文教学中的运用效果
- 派出所派出所教导员述职报告
- 低压电工作业考试B
- 18秋福建师范大学《管理心理学》在线作业一4
- 中国铝业公司职工违规违纪处分暂行规定
- 13建筑力学复习题(答案)
- 2008年新密市师德征文获奖名单 - 图文
- 保安员培训考试题库(附答案)
- 银川市贺兰一中一模试卷
- 2011—2017年新课标全国卷2文科数学试题分类汇编 - 1.集合
- 湖北省襄阳市第五中学届高三生物五月模拟考试试题一
- 范文
- Arguement
- 写作
- 官方
- 分析
- GRE
- 从组织设计原则分析当前城管
- 初中部2015-2016学年第一学期项目管理书 - 图文
- 第2章财务分析 习题
- 北理工翻硕(MTI)考研专业介绍及就业分析
- 企业服务口号大全
- 自考计算机专业毕业论文写作指南
- 实验小学申报省级语言文字规范化示范校自评报告
- 测评网数学竞赛-小学奥数辅导练习卷分数、小数四则运算中的巧算(一)
- 高三政治-2018届一轮复习练习(全国版)政治常识5-216 最新
- 古代文论论文题目
- 计算机操作系统期末复习题
- 敢问路在何方 - 项目经理成长手记
- 山水文化
- 北京市东城区2013届高三上学期期末考试化学试题(WORD)
- 中国芦笋行业市场调查研究报告(目录) - 图文
- 美学原理
- 老年人社会保障问题实践调查报告 - 图文
- 基层公务员中国梦演讲稿 精品
- 北语15秋《公共关系学》作业4满分答案
- 2016-2022年中国水力发电行业分析及发展趋势预测报告 - 图文