滿分GRE寫作范文賞析分享（一）

GRE的寫作是中國考生最不容易得到滿分的部分，究其原因是因為大家的思路和母語學習者不同。留學監(jiān)理網的老師就給大家找到了一些文章來幫助大家進行GRE考前的寫作訓練。

【題目】

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Ballmer Island Gazette:

“On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island’s moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville’s town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals.”

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

【滿分范文賞析】

【第一段】

The author of this editorial recommends that, to reduce accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, Balmer Island’s city council should restrict moped rentals from 50 to 25 per day, at each of the island’s six rental outlets. To support this recommendation the author cites the fact that last year, when nearby Seaville Island’s town council enforced similar measures, Seaville’s rate of moped accidents decreased by 50%. There are several reasons why this evidence fails to substantiate the claim.

【本段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument開頭段結構，即C—E—F的開頭結構。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下來概括原文為支持其結論所引用的Evidence，最后給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即其Evidence不能證實其結論。

【本段功能】

本段作為Argument開頭段，具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結論，即：為減少涉及摩托自行車與行人的事故的發(fā)生，Balmer島市議會應在該島六個租車點將摩托自行車的日租借量限制由50輛下調至25輛。本段接下來列舉了原文為支持其結論所引用的證據——在去年，當附近的Seaville島的鎮(zhèn)議會實行了類似的措施后，其摩托自行車事故率降低了50%。這些信息的歸納為正文段中即將進行的具體攻擊作鋪墊。

【第二段】

To begin with, the author assumes that all other conditions in Balmer that might affect the rate of moped-pedestrian accidents will remain unchanged after the restrictions are enacted. People often find ways to circumvent restrictions. For example, with a restricted supply of rental mopeds, people in Balmer who currently rent in the summer might purchase mopeds instead. Also, the number of pedestrians might increase in the future.With more pedestrians, especially tourists, the risk of moped-pedestrian accidents would probably increase. For that matter, the number of rental outlets might increase to make up for the artificial supply restriction per outlet, a likely scenario in consideration of the fact that moped rental demand will not likely decrease.Without considering and ruling out these and other possible changes that might contribute to a high incidence of moped-pedestrian accidents, the author cannot convince me that the proposed restrictions will necessarily have the desired effect.

【本段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第一個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和其在原文中出現的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【本段功能】

本段作為正文第一段，攻擊原文中出現的第一個重要邏輯錯誤——忽略他因。原文作者假設在制定限制措施后，Balmer島上所有其它可能影響摩托自行車事故率的條件將保持不變。然而，人們經常會發(fā)現避開限制的方法。例如，當摩托自行車的租借量受限制時，目前在夏季租用摩托自行車的Balmer島人們可能會改為購買摩托自行車。另外，行人的數目在未來可能會增加。行人(尤其是游客)數目的增加可能會導致摩托自行車和行人之間發(fā)生事故的增多。鑒于對摩托自行車出租的需求量不太可能會下降，摩托自行車租借點的數目很可能會增加，以彌補每個租車點的租借量所受到的人為限制。本段最后指出：作者在沒有考慮和排除這些可能會提高摩托自行車和行人紙質件事故的發(fā)生率的其它改變之前，是不能說服讀者其所提出的措施一定會獲得期望的效果的。

【第三段】

Next, the author fails to consider other possible explanations for the 50% decline in Seaville’s moped accident rate last year. Perhaps last year Seaville experienced unusually fair weather, during which moped accidents are less likely. Perhaps fewer tourists visited Seaville last year than during most years, thereby reducing demand for rental mopeds to levels even below the allowed limits. Perhaps last year some of Seaville’s moped rental outlets purchased new mopeds that are safer to drive. Or perhaps the restrictions were already in effect but were not enforced until last year. In any event, a decline in Seaville’s moped accident rate during only one year is scarcely sufficient to draw any reliable conclusions about what might have caused the decline, or about what the accident rate will be in years ahead.

【本段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第二個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和其在原文中出現的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【本段功能】

本段作為正文第二段，攻擊原文中出現的第二個重要邏輯錯誤——忽略他因。原文作者沒有考慮到可能使得Seaville島去年摩托自行車事故率降低50%的其它解釋。Seaville島去年可能經歷了不同尋常的好天氣、去年參觀Seaville島的游客數目可能少于往年、鎮(zhèn)上的摩托自行車租借點可能在去年購買了駕駛起來更安全的新摩托自行車、該鎮(zhèn)對摩托自行車租借量的限制也可能其實早在起作用，只是直到去年才被加強。本段最后指出：無論如何，Seaville島上摩托自行車的事故率在僅僅一年之內的下降均不足以推出任何有關這一下降的原因或未來幾年的事故率的可靠的結論。

【第四段】

To further explore the link between the two locations and a reduction in number of accidents, the author relies on what could be an unfair comparison. Perhaps Balmer’s ability to enforce moped-rental restrictions does not meet Seaville’s ability.In that case, the mere enactment of similar restrictions in Balmer is no guarantee of a similar result. Or perhaps the demand for mopeds in Seaville is always greater than in Balmer. Specifically, if fewer than all available mopeds are currently rented per day from the average Balmer outlet, while in Seaville everyavailable moped is rented each day, then the proposed restriction is likely to have less impact on the accident rate in Balmer than in Seaville.

【本段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第三個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和其在原文中出現的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【本段功能】

本段作為正文第三段，攻擊原文中出現的第三個重要邏輯錯誤——錯誤類比?；蛟SBalmer島在加強摩托自行車租借限制時的執(zhí)行力不及Seaville島的執(zhí)行力。在這種情形下，僅僅在Balmer島上制定與Seaville島相似的限制并不能保證獲得相似的效果。抑或是Seaville島對摩托自行車的需求量始終比Balmer島上的大。特別地，如果通常的Balmer島租借點每天租出的摩托自行車數量比其可供租借的摩托自行車總量少，而Seaville島租借點的每輛摩托自行車每天均被租出，那么被提議的限制對Balmer島事故率的影響很可能會小于其對Seaville島的影響。

【第五段】

Finally, the author provides no evidence that the same restrictions that served to reduce the incidence of all “moped accidents” by 50% would also serve to reduce the incidence of “accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians” by 50%. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the number of moped accidents not involving pedestrians decreased by a greater percentage, while the number of moped-pedestrian accidents decreased by a smaller percentage, or even increased. Since the author has not accounted for these possibilities, the recommendation requires further substantiation.

【本段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第四個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和其在原文中出現的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【本段功能】

本段作為正文第四段，攻擊原文中出現的第四個重要邏輯錯誤——錯誤假設。作者沒有提供證據證明使得“摩托自行車事故”的發(fā)生減少50%的那些限制同樣也將使得“涉及摩托自行車和行人的事故”的發(fā)生減少50%。如果缺乏如此證據，完全可能是摩托自行車事故的數目降低了更大的百分比，而摩托自行車和行人之間的事故降低了較小的百分比，甚至可能上升了。本段最后指出：既然作者沒有對這些可能性進行說明，其建議需要被進一步證實。

【第六段】

In conclusion, the recommendation is not well-supported. To convince an audience that the proposed restriction would achieve the desired outcomethe author needs to establish that no changes serving to increase Balmer’s moped-pedestrian accident rate will occur in the foreseeable future. The author must also provide clear evidence that last year’s decline in moped accidents in Seaville was attributable primarily to its moped rental restrictions rather than to one or more other factors. In order to better evaluate the recommendation, an audience wouldneed more information comparing the supply of and demand for moped rentals on the two islands. An audience would also need to know the rates of moped-pedestrian accidents in Seaville, both prior to and after the restrictions were enforced in Seaville.

【本段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument結尾段結構，即C—S的結尾結構。段落首先再次重申原文站不住腳的Conclusion，接下來給出可以增強原文說服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要進一步提供的證據和信息等。

【本段功能】

本段作為Argument結尾段，具體功能即為總結歸納+提出建議。段落首先再次重申強調Argument作者的論證不合理，接下來給出合理的建議。為說服觀眾其所提出的措施一定會獲得期望的效果，原文作者需要確定可能導致Balmer島摩托自行車與行人之間事故的發(fā)生率上升的改變不會在可預見的未來發(fā)生。作者還需提供清晰的證據證明Seaville島去年摩托自行車事故率的下降主要歸因于其摩托自行車租借量的限制而不是其它的因素。為了更好地評價原文的建議，觀眾需要更多比較兩島摩托自行車租借的供求量以及有關Seaville島在加強限制措施之前和之后其島上摩托自行車與行人之間事故的發(fā)生率的信息。不難發(fā)現，結尾段總結提出的建議非常規(guī)整地與正文各段中依次攻擊的錯誤遙相呼應，使全篇文章顯得渾然一體。

【滿分要素剖析】

【語言表達】

本文的語言使用規(guī)范、清晰，詞匯也用得準確地道，并使用多變的句式讓考官讀起來津津有味，這些都是GRE寫作官方的語言要求。同時，文章的結構型語言和內容型語言相得益彰，結構是骨架，內容是血肉，二者完美結合。

1) The author of this editorial recommends that,….(標志性的Argument開頭段引出原文結論的語言表達形式。)To support this recommendation the author cites the fact that ….(引出原文為支持其結論所引用的荒謬論據。)There are several reasons why this evidence fails to substantiate the claim.(標志性的指出文章錯誤的語言表達。整體開頭段是標準的C—E—F的語言和邏輯模版體系。)

2) To begin with, the author assumes that ….For example, …. Also, …. For that matter, …, a likely scenario in consideration of the fact that …. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible changes that might…, the author cannot convince me that the proposed … will necessarily have the desired effect.(標志性的忽略他因錯誤的語言和邏輯模版體系。)

3) Next, the author fails to consider other possible explanations for …. Perhaps …. Perhaps …, thereby …. Perhaps …. Or perhaps …. In any event, … is scarcely sufficient to draw any reliable conclusions about ….(標志性的忽略他因錯誤的語言和邏輯模版體系。)

4) To further explore the link between …, the author relies on what could be an unfair comparison. Perhaps …. In that case, …. Or perhaps …. Specifically, if …, while …, then the proposed … is likely to … than ….(標志性的錯誤類比的語言和邏輯模版體系。)

5) Finally, the author provides no evidence that …. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that …. Since the author has not accounted for these possibilities, the recommendation requires further substantiation.(標志性的錯誤假設的語言和邏輯模版體系。)

6) In conclusion, the recommendation is not well-supported. To convince an audience that … the author needs to establish that …. The author must also provide clear evidence that … was attributable primarily to … rather than to one or more other factors. In order to better evaluate the recommendation, an audience would need more information comparing …. An audience would also need to know ….(標志性的Argument結尾段的Conclusion—Suggestion體系的語言和邏輯模版體系。)

【邏輯結構】

本文的寫作體現出了非常嚴謹的開頭段—正文段1、2、3、4—結尾段的邏輯體系：

(開頭段)The author of this editorial recommends that,….

(正文段1)To begin with, the author assumes that ….

(正文段2)Next, the author fails to consider other possible explanations for ….

(正文段3)To further explore the link between …, the author relies on what could be an unfair comparison.

(正文段4)Finally, the author provides no evidence that ….

(結尾段)In conclusion, the recommendation is not well-supported.

特別值得一提的是本文正文第一段的寫作。該段首先通過To begin with, the author assumes that all other conditions in Balmer that might affect the rate of moped-pedestrian accidents will remain unchanged after the restrictions are enacted.一句說明原文中出現的忽略他因錯誤。接下來，該段使用People often find ways to circumvent restrictions.一句簡短有力地過渡，然后通過For example, …. Also, …. For that matter,…, a likely scenario in consideration of the fact that….等句遞進地提出其它的可能解釋。最后，該段Without considering and ruling out these and other possible changes that might contribute to a high incidence of moped-pedestrian accidents, the author cannot convince me that the proposed restrictions will necessarily have the desired effect.一句對全段討論進行總結，充分展現出了正文段嚴密的邏輯思路。

（注，本文內容轉自網絡，如有侵權，請聯系刪除）

• 上一篇：GRE中常用動詞的分類
• 下一篇：滿分GRE寫作范文賞析分享（二）

• 相關文章

  • 留學申請 要不要找留學中介
  • 出國留學費用一般要多少
  • 選擇留學中介的十大誤區(qū)
  • 如何選擇英國留學中介
  • 最新！2020中國教育部承認的英國大學名單完整版！
  • 2021年英國TOP10大學碩士留學申請條件匯總！

• 最新問答

  查看更多>>
  • 香港留學一年的費用需要多少錢
  • 應屆高三學生申請出國留學讀本科的途徑有哪些？如何選擇？
  • 今年高考的文科生，二本線，讀什么專業(yè)好？
  • 高考成績剛過一本線，高考志愿填報和出國留學如何選擇？
  • 什么是CUG完全大學指南？
  • 什么是CWUR世界大學排名？