GREargument应如何进行有效分析

今天小编带来了GRE argument应如何进行有效分析,我们一起来看看吧,下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE argument应如何进行有效分析

在GRE的备考过程中，很多同学拿到argument的时候不知道如何下手，虽然知道要去寻找其中的逻辑错误，但是具体如何寻找，找到之后如何处理却依旧很困惑。为了帮助同学们更好地去分析argument，一般我们拿到一篇argument之后，会对其中的证据进行如下的三步处理：

● Assumption：也就是文章中的evidence 要推到conclusion必须满足的条件。

● Weaken：指出有哪些细节和其他可能性的存在能够削弱这个推理过程。

● Strengthen：通过什么样的改变能够让argument的推理过程变得合理。

比如我们来看题库中的这样一道题：

The following was written as a part of an application for a small-business loan by a group of developers in the city of Monroe.

"A jazz music club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. Currently, the nearest jazz club is 65 miles away; thus, the proposed new jazz club in Monroe, the C-Note, would have the local market all to itself. Plus, jazz is extremely popular in Monroe: over 100,000 people attended Monroe's annual jazz festival last summer; several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe; and the highest-rated radio program in Monroe is 'Jazz Nightly,' which airs every weeknight at 7 P.M. Finally, a nationwide study indicates that the typical jazz fan spends close to $1,000 per year on jazz entertainment."

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.

首先我们先找到作者的结论：

在Monroe建立爵士音乐俱乐部将会是非常盈利的产业。

接下来我们按照上面的方法去寻找文章中的每一条证据并进行分析：

前提1：人们愿意来新建的俱乐部C-Note

削弱：最近的爵士音乐俱乐部在65英里之外与人们会不会来C-Note没有关系。首先不知道人们有没有去65英里之外的这个club，即使人们去了是不是人们愿意在本地的C-Note消费。很有可能人们更愿意与陌生人一起分享音乐;或者C-Note的装修及音乐的选择等不能满足人们的需求。

加强：有证据表明当地人特别喜欢爵士乐并且愿意在当地消费。

前提2：去年夏天10万多人参加了Monroe的爵士音乐节，这意味着爵士乐在本地很受欢迎。

削弱：很有可能这10万多人都不是本地人，而是其他地区的人来本地参加某一个爵士音乐节，而之所以在Monroe举办音乐节也仅仅是因为这个地段更便宜;还有可能他们去参加爵士音乐节根本不是因为喜欢爵士音乐，而是这个音乐节是免费的，他们只是去凑个热闹。

加强：这10万多人大多数都是本地人，且是真正去欣赏爵士音乐。

前提3：若干知名的爵士音乐家居住在Monroe，这意味着该地区爵士乐流行。

削弱：这些爵士音乐家住在这里仅仅是因为这里环境优美，人口少，环境好;或者是因为这个地方的人其实不喜欢爵士音乐，因此不认识他们，他们不用担心自己的生活受到粉丝的打扰等。

加强：爵士音乐家住在这里是因为当地人喜欢爵士音乐。

前提4：Monroe获得评价最高的广播节目是平时每天晚上7点播出的“Jazz Nightly”，这意味着该地区爵士乐很流行。

削弱：很有可能同时段其他节目太差了，人们收听这个节目也仅仅是为了打发时间或者躲避更加恶俗的节目，这不代表人们喜欢爵士乐;可能这个节目在电台覆盖时间长，所以很多人在听这个节目;还有可能”Jazz Nightly”和C-Note的风格完全不一样。

加强：有证据表明人们是主动收听这档节目，并且与C-Note的风格相似。

前提5：全国性调查的结果是有效且准确的。

削弱：首先全国性的调查结果不能代表Monroe这个地方的情况，很可能这个地方的情况与全国其他的地区的情况是不一样的。而且这个调查很可能不是随机的，只是调查了一些相对富有的人，而该地区大多数人的整体收入是偏低的，所以人们可能不会花1000美元预算在爵士音乐上;还有可能该研究只涵盖了少数群体，所以也是没有说服力的。

加强：调查是科学有效且具有代表性的。

再比如说这样一道题：

The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company.

"Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners, that are almost twice as energy efficient as those sold a decade ago. Also, new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating. Therefore, the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase—and may decline slightly. Since our three electric generating plants in operation for the past twenty years have always met our needs, construction of new generating plants will not be necessary."

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.

作者结论：

没有必要建立新的发电站。

前提1：调查是真实有效的且户主渴望节能的意向能够转化为实际行动

削弱：调查的人数非常少，不具有代表性，比如说只调查了几个人，不能反映该地区的真实情况。调查对象不是随机选择的，如故意调查了一些社区里面的环保小卫士，他们当然会愿意节能减排。被调查者由于利益考虑可能不会说实话，如正在接受电台的采访，在摄像机面前肯定会承认自己的节能意向。而且人们渴望节能不一定会真正采取行动去节能。

加强：保证调查的有效性和代表性，并且证明人们的意向是可以转化为实际行动的。

前提2：生产商现在推出很多能效比10年前的电器高一倍的家用电器，房主必然会购买。

削弱：由于购买新的电器会带来额外的支出，可能这些居民家中以前的电器还可以继续使用，所以对于他们来说，购买新的家用电器是没有必要的。因此，商场即使在大力推广这些节能电器，但是居民的购买欲望可能很小。

加强：有证据表明商场的推销能够成功的说服消费者购买。

前提3：更好的房屋隔热和被动式的太阳能取暖的技术必然能得到应用。

削弱：很有可能更好的房屋隔热和被动式的太阳能取暖的技术由于成本过高，很多家庭不愿意采用;或者现在很多家庭房子都已经装修好了，如果要采用新技术的话需要重新改造线路什么的，特别麻烦，而且会带来附加成本，于是人们不会选择。

加强：有证据表明更好的房屋隔热和被动式的太阳能取暖的技术的成本完全在房主接受的范围之内，并且他们乐于接受这个额外成本，且房屋改造起来比较简单。

前提4：过去20年和现在的需求规律适用于未来。

削弱：虽然过去20年的用电需求可以满足，但是情况在未来可能发生变化，导致用电量的增加，比如未来化石燃料的减少导致人们不得不用电能取而代之，或者大功率用电的企业在本地出现。而且过去的三所发电站也有可能出现故障而导致供电不足。

加强：有证据表明未来的三所发电站的确可以保障用电需求且没有其他用电需求的增长。

GRE作文ARGUMENT官方题库满分范文点评：Bargain Brand Cereals

The following appeared in a memo from the marketing director of Bargain Brand Cereals:

One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand Breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by lowering their prices, and although several plans to introduce their own budget brands have been executed, not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our success selling cereal, Bargain Brand should now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible.

满分范文赏析

In this memo the marketing director of Bargain Brand Cereal claims that the company has a particular knack for selling low-priced food and will continue to make a profit should it follow the recommendation to expand from selling only cereal to other low-priced food. To support the recommendation, the memo points out that Bargain Brand is still earning a profit from its cereal sales, despite the fact that major competitors have lowered their cereal prices, and offered their own versions of bargain-priced cereal brands. The recommendation to expand is based on evidence that is not too convincing. Let us review the argument.

【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：Bargain Brand Cereal(简称BB)公司的经理认为公司在销售low-priced food上有优势;同时公司可以继续盈利如果把产品从Cereal推广到其他low-priced food。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：尽管其他公司麦片产品不断降价并推出低价麦片品牌，BB在销售麦片上持续盈利。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。

First of all, while Bargain Brand is still earning a profit, a crucial point here is determining the extent to which Bargain Brand profits have diminished since other the introduction of alternative low-priced cereals hit the market. It is entirely possible that Bargain Brand has been less profitable since its competitors lowered their cereal prices, and that in a little more time, Bargain Brand will sink into the red.

【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：论据模糊。作者认为原文只提出到了BB公司麦片盈利的情况，并没有提出其利润在其他低价麦片产品出现时，减少的程度。作者提出假设，很可能BB公司盈利在短时间内就已经减少到最低。

Secondly, the memo states that several major competitors plan to offer their own special bargain brands to compete directly with Bargain Brand. Yet the memo fails to account for this fact m concluding that Bargain Brand will continue to be profitable. In all likelihood, after the introduction of competing brands Bargain Brand's profits will diminish even further. Without providing evidence that this will not occur, the director cannot convincingly conclude that Bargain Brand will continue to profit from its cereal sales.

【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：错误因果(时间类)。原文中虽然说BB公司在其他品牌的冲击下盈利，但作者认为没有证据表明盈利会持续。接着，作者提出一种可能性，公司利润会diminish even further。

Thirdly, based on the fact that Bargain Brand continues to profit from cereal sales, the memo concludes that Bargain Brand should expand its product line to include other low-priced food products. No evidence is provided whereby it is demonstrated that Bargain Brand is likely to be profitable in other markets. Perhaps the profitability of the cereal is attributable so a factor that connote be replicated in the production of other low-food products.

【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：错误类比(忽略他因)。作者认为，即便BB的麦片产品会继续盈利，也不能说名BB公司会在其他产品上盈利。接下来作者给出了其他因素来反驳原文观点。

In conclusion, based on the evidence provided, the recommendation is ridiculous. To strengthen the argument, the director must demonstrate that Bargain Brand will continue to profit from cereal sales long after its major competitors introduce their own bargain brands. To better assess the director's conclusion that Bargain Brand should expand its line of bargain-priced foods, an audience would need more information about why the cereal line is so successful in the first place and if this contributing factor can be reproduced in the production of other low-priced foods.

【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BB manager的建议不合理，接下来给出是文章更有说服力的合理化建议：一是必须给出BB在其他竞争者退出新产品的情况下continue to profit的证据，二是提出BB公司麦片产品畅销的因素以及这些因素能否被应用到其他产品中。结尾段的建议非常规整的隐射前面的错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。

GRE作文ARGUMENT官方题库满分范文点评：Schenectady's Chamberof Commerce

The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Schenectady's Chamber of Commerce:

"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Schenectady has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat vandalism, we should install such lighting throughout Schenectady. By reducing vandalism in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."

满分范文赏析

The president of Schenectady's Chamber of Commerce recommends the installation of high-intensity lighting throughout Schenectady as the best means of reducing vandalism and revitalizing city neighborhoods. The memo indicates that when Belleville took similar action, vandalism declined there almost immediately. The president also points out that since Schenectady's police began patrolling on bicycles the incidence of vandalism has remained unchanged. The lighting concludes the memo is the only effective measure to the reduction of vandalism. The president's argument is flawed in several critical respects.

【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：Schenectady(简称S)的president推荐安装high-intensity light以防止破坏和振兴城市。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：一是Belleville(简称B)用了相同的方法使破坏行为立即减少;二是指出light是使B地区破会行为减少的唯一有效方法，因为警察巡逻没有任何改进。开始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。

First, the argument is based on the assumption that in Belleville the immediate decline in vandalism was attributable to the lighting rather than to some other phenomenon. Perhaps around the same time the city added police units or more after-school youth education programs. Moreover, perhaps since the initial decline vandals will, over time, grown accustomed to the lighting and no longer deterred by it. Without ruling out other explanations for the decline and showing that the decline will be a lasting one, the president cannot reasonably conclude on the basis of Belleville's experience that the same course of action would serve Schenectady's objectives.

【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(时间先后)。作者认为B地区增加lighting和B地区vandalism减少这两个先后发生的事情并不具有因果关系。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。

Secondly, the president assumes too hastily that Schenectady's bicycle patrol has been ineffective in deterring vandalism. Perhaps other factors including demographic shift or worsening economic conditions have served to increase vandalism. The bicycle patrol could very well have offset that increase. Without showing that all other conditions affecting the incidence of vandalism have remained unchanged since the police began its bicycle patrol, the president cannot make a determination about the effectiveness of such bike patrols. If one does not understand the correlation between rates of crime stopped by the patrol, the mayor can not state that the bicycle patrols did not reduce the convincingly conclude that high-intensity lighting would be a more effective means of preventing vandalism.

【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：错误因果(结果错误)。作者指出：原文中“bicycle patrol对vandalism无效的结论”是靠不住的。作者指出造成vandalism的其他因素，如demographic shift和worse econmic conditions，并提出一种可能性：bicycle patrol抵消了这两种影响的增长。最后作者总结，在缺乏other condition unchanged的前提下，结论是不可靠的。

Thirdly, the president assumes that high-intensity lighting and bicycle patrolling are Schenectady's only possible means of reducing crime. In all likelihood Schenectady has other choices: social programs, juvenile legal-system reforms, and so on. Moreover, vandalism is probably not the only type of crime in Schenectady. Therefore, unless the president can show that high-intensity lighting will deter other types of crime as well I cannot take seriously the president's conclusion that installing high intensity lighting would be the best way for Schenectady to reduce its overall crime rate and promote the revitalization of the city.

【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：绝对语气。原文中增加high intensity lighting和bicycle patrol是减少S地区犯罪率的唯一方法语气过于绝对。作者提出了其他的方法，例如social program, juvenile legal-system reforms等其他可以减少犯罪率的方法。进一步，作者提出vandlism是众多crime的一种，high intensity lighting 未必是减少总体犯罪率的唯一方法。

Finally, for the sake of the argument, lets assume that high-intensity lighting was Schenectady's best means of reducing crime in its central business district, the president's further assertion that reducing crime would result in a revitalization of city neighborhoods is unwarranted. Perhaps the decline of Schenectady's city neighborhoods is attributable not to the crime rate in Schenectady's central business district but rather to other factors such as overall economic conditions, the availability of more attractive housing in the suburbs, and so on. And if the neighborhoods in decline are not located within the central business district the president's argument is even weaker.

【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：错误因果。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。

GRE argument应如何进行有效分析相关文章：