GRE 写作argument全部官方范文分析汇总

GRE 写作argument全部官方范文分析汇总

写在前面的话：

1、官方范文的重要性不言而喻，大家对官方范文的态度也有褒有贬，有人说这些6分的官方文章都是大牛写出来的，我们学不来，于是有的同学的重心就转向了北美范文。但有一点是不可否认的——官方范文是真的6分，可是ets从来没承认过任何一个北美范文是六分的，尽管也确实都是很好的文章。;

2、关于argument的重要性

很多人认为argument相对于issue来说容易些，也更好操作些，更容易拿高分。我个人认为这是个误区。我们最后拿到的成绩是个平均分，没有人知道具体每篇是多少。尽管有的同学会猜测自己得分是多少多少，但是猜测毕竟是猜测。因为游戏是ets定的，他的标准和我们心中接受的标准肯定是不一样的，打个比方，看看后面第三篇满分范文，让一般人看，估计没有几个人会毫不犹豫地给满分，甚至高分，但在ets眼中它就是满分;另外，实际上新东方的模版写出来的argu文章和官方范文给出的满分文章是有很大差别的，主要体现在是一个是零散凑成的(所谓的让步式攻击有时只是形式上的)而另一个是有核心思想的，我会在后面的分析中具体说明。既然这样，那完全有可能最终4分是来源于3分的argue加5分的issue，而不是反之。所以说，我们有可能高估了我们写argument的能力。

3、对于官方范文，实际上这些看上去很天马行空的文章，潜在的蕴涵了ets所要求的所有要点。之所以很多人看了很多遍没有看出什么可借鉴的地方，源于两点：一是没有和awintro上的要求相对应起来看，二是没有把有限的6篇官方范文进行横比。。

4、本文整体结构：

第一部分awintro中A部分重点语句的归纳和梳理，方便与后面的分析相对照。这里所有的英文均一字不差的摘自awintro。同时也作为我的另一篇文章“awintro的解读”中的argument部分的补充。

第二部分是我的对于全部6份官方范文(结合awintro)的分析，本文属于个人观点，一家之言难免存在偏颇和不足之处，恳请大家多多指教。

第三部分为总结。

第四部分为了显示不是纯扯淡，并让我的证明更加具体，我按照我分析出来的结果也独立写了一篇文章，请大家狂拍。

注：我把awintro和没有加入分析的六个范文放在附件里了，欢迎大家下载。

5、ets就像是一个羞涩的女孩，从来不会直接告诉我们她想要什么，但同时，也在无时不刻的不在暗示我们她想要什么。

第一部分：awintro的归纳和整理

1、在拿到题目后应该找出这些：what is offered as evidence, support, or proof;

what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded;what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof;what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated。总结一下：即论据，结论，推理过程中的未加证明的假设，论据中的潜在后果。这四点都是需要我们尽量展示在第一段里面的。

2、同时，还要考虑原题目中的逻辑链：In addition, you should consider the structure of the argument。在这过程中更重要的是：sometimes implicit steps in the thinking process and consider whether the movement from each one to the next is logically sound。这是我们攻击的要点，尤其是隐含的逻辑步骤。

3、在分析时：Y ou will not be expected to know methods of analysis or technical terms.随后在范文中可以看出，几乎是没有那种像新东方那样精确错误名词的，而只是就着错误本身的逻辑进行分析。不需要给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，如果拽那些名词就给人感觉咱们特意学过逻辑，嘿嘿那既然是专业的要求也就更加苛刻了。

4、awintro中举一个例子：For instance, in one topic an elementary school principal might conclude that the new playground equipment has improved student attendance because absentee rates have declined since it was installed.论证的思路为：(1)意识到存在它因you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,(2)提供具体的它因to offer some common-sense examples, (3)从结论考虑，怎样才能使论证完整有力，即如何改进and perhaps to suggest what would be necessary to verify the conclusion. For instance, absentee rates might have decreased because the climate was mild. This would have to be ruled out in order for the principal’s conclusion to be valid.

5、官方认为的有几个关键名词需要解释，其中analysis这个词的解释很重要，很多同学知道这个词的意思是分析，但什么是分析就说得不是很清楚了。这里给出了清晰的答案：the process of breaking something (e.g., an argument) down into its component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up the whole。说白了，就是把原题中的三段式论证给打拆开，逐一地进行分析。同样的analytical writing的核心也就是拆开原命题，分成1串逻辑链，然后一部分一部分地讨论。

6、核心论证方法：找出隐含假设(并质疑)identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible;寻找它因和寻找反例think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can;加条件后讨论think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims;提出改进方案ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound。同学们以上四点是核心论证方法!!!所有的满分范文中都用到了这四种方法。

其中，在论证时需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims。这里重要的是加上一个常识性条件后，能意识到，有些情况，是支持原命题

的。这一点至关重要，我们是讨论，要求同存异，而不是一味的批驳。

7、满分作文的模式：essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the main points of the critique。先复述题目，然后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。

8、高分作文的攻击顺序：Y ou might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the argument's line of reasoning.这里给出了两种攻击顺序，根据我读了一个多月awintro的经验来看，一般官方给出的建议总是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推荐issue观点的时候总是把平衡观点放在最后。所以这里比较好的方案是先质疑一个核心的假设，然后再按照原文逻辑来搞。

9、6分作文标准：

A6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.

A typical paper in this category

? clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully

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

? effectively supports the main points of the critique

? demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety

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

第二部分：范文分析

第一篇文章

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist

pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

原题逻辑顺序为：数据显示了对保护装备的需求==〉展开说明这个数据是怎样显示这样的需求的(即用这个装备有什么效果)==〉结论：为了达到这个效果我们应该重金买这保护设备。

Benchmark 6

The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前两句首先肯定了原命题中值得肯定的地方。这是求同存异的表现。注意这里第一句作者同意原命题的同时，在第二句紧接着就给出了展开的证明。而没有光是罗列观点。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再说原命题是存在逻辑漏洞的，即它因。这里并没有展开论证，因为这是全文的中心句，整个文章都在后面给予论证。同时，最后半句给出了论据中的潜在后果。

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). body打头第一段是属于攻击总前提假设的，作者认为这个(即保护性设备和防护性设备的差别)是有必要在讨论一切之前弄清楚的。论证方法为质疑假设，加条件后讨论，提出建议。实际上，这个前提对应的就是开头段的前两句话。深层的含义就是，尽管我在开头对你的某一个部分作了让步似的同意，但是这个同意也是建立在一定的假设基础上的，要是这个假设搞不清楚，哼哼我让不让步还不一定呢!本段就来讨论这个假设基础。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 这两句分别从两个方面进行了论述，为本段第一句话的论证进行服务，每一方面的具体方法是先定义，再比较。论证方法为加上不同的条件后进行讨论，比如前一句话假定只有防护性装备会怎样，后一句话假定只有保护性装备会怎么样。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 这里提出了作者的建议，即如何通过进一步的完善使原命题更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果这个问题(保护防护设备的差别)解决了后面的讨论才能继续。所以说，总的来说这一段是讨论了原文一个核心的前提。

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the

inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not.从本段起，连着的三个自然段就是按照原文逻辑链的顺序进行攻击和质疑。实际上，这三段对应的就是开头段的however之后的话。本段先质疑了人的本质的差异。论证方法是加条件后讨论。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.以上三句话展开证明第一个分支观点，论证方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段论。加入常识性条件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保护装置==〉配戴装置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上两句展开证明第二个分支观点，论证方法同样为大名鼎鼎的三段论，加上常识性条件。即街道公园本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人会选择安全的地方==〉来这里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。这里最后一点是我给补充上的，原文没有论证完全，但是基本的框架还是有的。

The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻击逻辑链的第二步，受伤的程度没有说清。这里的论证方法核心是质疑隐含假设，加条件后讨论。The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隐含假设。This is certainly not the case.指出它错了。Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人们晚上去滑的人多这个条件后讨论，最终削弱原命题。

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻击逻辑联的第三步，质量好的不一定有用。核心论证方法为列举它因和提出建议。For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.简单的t-shirt也能很有用。Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.

建议我们对器材考虑得更加全面些。

The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.强调原文的初衷还是很好的，就好像两个人在那里辩论，范文把原文给说急了，范文怕原文不高兴了，就再哄哄他：别看我骂了这么多，你的初衷还是好的嘛!值得肯定。Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最终还是委婉的表达了自己的建议。After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后补充论证自己的建议：论证方法为反证法。同时范文在最后吓唬一吓原文，告诉他不这样做的可怕的后果。

Reader Comment on 6

This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.

The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt's fallacious reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:

*that preventive and protective gear are not the same

*that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious

*that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries

*that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.

In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the "6" range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored "6."

小总结：

(1)分析原题目中可取之处;指出原文中不足之处;推出论据中的潜在后果。(这里的第一点展开证明，这样虽然没有直接复述题目，但是这三点说完后整个框架就很清楚了

(2)正文中第一段质疑我认为的核心假设错误(从原题目中的可取之处中寻找，要把它唯一一点正确的东西也给质疑了)，后三段按原文逻辑顺序攻击三点，如本文中人的本质==〉人受的伤的差别==〉为防受伤，买质量好的就有用?可以看出，这三点是与原文中三段论式论证环环相扣的。这就是前面第一部分讲解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具体应用。

(3)逻辑方面的论证方法为：寻找并质疑隐含假设，列举它因，加条件(常识性条件，或者限定性条件)后讨论，提出建议。

(4)在语言方面的论证手法有：分情况讨论，举反例推缪。

(5)最后的时候还是要首先肯定原文的可取之处如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的

更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善会有什么后果。(范文最后一段基本属于扯淡)

第二篇文章：

The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members.

In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields.

For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries.

Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics.

And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating.

Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.

原题逻辑顺序：UC老师牛==〉UC学生牛==〉想牛就选择UC

While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training. 首先承认UC的声望看起来确实不错，算是部分的同意了原文的观点，并简短的展开论证说事因为老师牛。随后便指出还有他因，但是并没有展开它因。(留到正文第一段来展开) The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. 这里指出论据的不充足。实际上是在攻击原文的论据逻辑链。Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office? 给出了论证：提出两个问题进行质疑。

The assumption is that because English and Physics have excellent brains in the faculty offices, their teaching skills and their abilities to pass on knowledge and the love of learning to their students are equally laudable. BODY打头第一段与开头段第一句话对应，具体提出了他因。同时，还注意到所让步的内容(老师牛学校就牛)仍然是一致的。质疑：老师牛，就能提供牛的教育吗? Unfortunately, this is often not the case. 一针见血的指出不是这么回事。A prospective student would certainly be advised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the physical plant of the departments

in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the living arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities available for leisure activities and entertainment.具体论证：还有其他的因素决定教育的水平的。论证方法为列举他因。这里的论证给人的感觉就是列的东西多，而且细。

This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general. 这里对于原文中逻辑链中的论据不足进行证明。实际上就是和开头段后两句话(只有两个系不够)相对应，进一步展开进行证明原文的论据怎么不充分，我们要全面评估UC除了只知道提供的两个系的信息外还要知道哪些。Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors.

这里属于复述原文，立好靶子做好准备开始攻击。More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student.

Are the teaching faculty approachable? Are they helpful? Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge? Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement? How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes? Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students? Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University handling all those cars? Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school? What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?一开始攻击就一连问了十几个问题，显得很雄辩，这里问了这么多问题，核心只有一个，学校老师学生之间三角关系到底怎么样。具体论证是先说师生关系(老师对待学生怎么样，学生对待老师怎么样)，再说学校和学生(学校给学生提供了哪些便利)，最后说学校和老师和学生的关系(老师通过学校为了提高给学生的教育提出了什么意见么).可以说是层层递进，还是很有章法的!论证手法为列举他因。

What about that 75% employment record? 这里质疑了逻辑链中的另一个论据，即毕业生找工作的数据也能推出学校牛。核心论证方法为质疑假设，提出建议。Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do. 这里论证方法为质疑假设(是否是工作在喜欢的专业)，我观察到这里并没有给出质疑后的结果的展开。也许作者认为展开后的结果是不言而喻的所以就不再展开细说了。这就是作者大牛之处，他懂得驾驭知道什么地方说到多少就够了，所以越是大牛的文章就越是短。这个文章就很短。而对于我们来说，它的论证思路是一定要接受，但是为了保险起见，还是把每个论点发展完全比较好，比如在这里加上：要是他们不在自己的最喜欢专业工作，说明他们还是没有足够的实力让自己喜欢的工作接受自己，从而说明母校的教育也没有那么牛啊。我们论证的越充分，显然就越有把握拿高分。A more specific statement about the employability of students from this University is needed in order to make the argument forceful.提出了建议，使得论证更有力。

The paragraph given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about this University in order to entice students and to convince them that this is the best place to obtain a quality education. 这篇文章在最后没有肯定原文的初衷，而是不留情面的批评!这是要看具体

题目的，像这样的广告，本来就没有多么高尚的目的。而上一篇范文人家不管逻辑有多差，但人家总是抱着善良的一颗心，为了保护大家的生命安全啊!所以说，我们对于原命题的立意心里要有数。Much more work is needed by the public relations department before this can be made into a four-color brochure and handed out to prospective students.最后还是提出了整体的宏观的建议改进意见。

COMMENTARY

The writer of this outstanding response acknowledges that the University of Claria may "appear" to have a sterling reputation, but cogently argues that such a reputation is perhaps unwarranted in light of the thin and misleading information provided.

The essay's insightful critique targets several instances of unsound reasoning in the argument:

-- that the argument identifies academic achievements in only two departments;

-- that publications and research prove little about the quality of teaching at Claria; and

-- that the student employment statistic lacks specificity and may be entirely bogus.

The writer probes each questionable assumption and offers alternative explanations, pointing out, for instance, that invitations for faculty to teach elsewhere may have been purposely arranged in order to temporarily remove them from campus and that the employed students may be "flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets."

In addition, the response perceptively analyzes many features -- omitted by the argument -- that could more convincingly make the case that Claria is "the obvious choice."

The essay suggests that the search for a quality education would, at least, need to investigate the teaching strengths of the faculty; ideally one would also ask about research facilities, the university's physical plant, availability of classes, even parking arrangements!

Although the fourth paragraph ("What about that 75% employment record?") interrupts this discussion, the essay is, on the whole, logically and effectively organized.

Each paragraph develops the central premise: that the argument is uncompelling because it fails to use more valid indices of educational quality.

The writing is succinct, graceful, and virtually error-free, distinguished by impressive diction ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication.

For all of these reasons, the essay earns a 6