GRE作文考试入门和进阶提高攻略(6)

　　 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

　　Walnut Groves town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste, BECause EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABCs fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ--which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks--has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last years town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZs performance.

　　The argument is not well reasoned at all, and it might be wise for Walnut Groves town council to turn to ABC Disposal.

　　To begin with, despite EZs weekly working frequency is as twice as ABCs, yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the advantage is necessary and fictional. For instance, if the towns garbage amount is under a particularly lower scale, which merely reaches the quantity of once disposal from ABC and hence the relatively once more from EZ is just a futile plethora. Also, even if twice disposal is applicable, it still deserves to doubt whether most citizens would like usual to choose EZ when taking into account the price of its service has been increased by $500 a month. Most citizens is highly possible to pick up a company that can offer best services while calling for relatively little money, for saving the extra $500, which to some extent is dispensable, I think, most citizens can cope with some easily handled trash with their own methods instead of singly relying on the disposal company.

　　And another crucial point I cast great discretion on is whether the survey made last year is the persuasive reflection of the whole citizens actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the surveys sampling size and accordingly the ultimate respondents echoing the questions. Visualize the citizens of Walnut town are no less than 500 thousands, but ironically only the 5 hundred ones have the fortune to be asked the question and in the end the real available records making some senses are less than the 10% of the interviewers, namely the upper limit is only 50 people. Let alone whether these answers have the widely applicable representative, just judging about the number of respondents we can have justifiable rights to disregard the validity of this survey.

　　Almost to forget to point out, that the freshly ordered 20 trucks of EZ cannot add another ponderous stake onto the balance, on the contrary, it might exacerbate the impressions of EZ in peoples mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the companys property, and to take this disburse back the company must put some additional measures for compensation, thereby increasing the fees can lead the citizens to obtain the most strong conviction of loading the economic debt onto their shoulders, which finally ruins the tiny fantasy prone to the EZ.

　　So the arguers recommendation is just nothing but a cheap propaganda to throw to the vast residents a deceptive illusion. I believe, in general, any one having look through these vulgar tricks full of vague information and implicit causal claims like me would be likely to accept the town councils decision, after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests.

　　点评：这篇文章彻底纠正了上述病历文的缺点，开头简短有力，准确回应，中间正文论述过度自然，值得借鉴，另外结尾也摆脱了原先的改错建议，用讽刺的口吻深化了主题。大家一定要重视这个问题，因为这实在是个吃力不讨好的事，而且这样的人还真不少，下面再看一例来自满分网的习作，将这种毛病升华到了极至。

　　A new study collected data that shows that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. It is well known that many people who snore also stop breathing frequently during the night for a few seconds, a condition called sleep apnea. The interruption of breathing wakes the personoften so briefly that the waking goes unnoticed--and can leave the person too tired during the day to exercise. Anyone who snores, therefore, should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more.

In this argument, the arguer make a proposal that anyone who snores should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more. In order to prove his claims, a new study collected data has been quoted that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. in addition, the arguer also shows a common sense to support the conclusion, which says that sleep apnea, a condition caused by snore, can wakes the sleeping person often and leave him too tired to exercise during the day.

　　The explanation of the conclusion sounds quite plausible at the first glance, but after pondering deeply upon the matter, we may find that the arguer fails to build up a causal relationship between the sentific study and the the conclusion as presented above, furthermore, this argument also suffers from critical logical confusion, How can the person who is too tired to exercise join even more aerobic activities during the day? To reveal the flaws of the argument more clearly, let us detail the examination.

　　To begin with, one major assumption in short of legitimacy is the relationship claimsed between the propensity of weight-gaining among the snores and the method to handle this problem, which is simply described as eating less. However, why those people who snore are more likely to gain weight still remain unknown, how can the arguer gratuitously give the recommendation that the anyone who snores should try to eat less? there may be other ways to give the explanation of this problem, the most persuasive one is that the fat might cause by the hormone secreted by a kind of glands. When people are snoring, means, under the condition called sleep apnea, the amount of hormone being secreted may exceed or less than, the normal one, which keeps the metabolism speed of the human body. Therefore, it is reasonable to imagine that the problem would even get worse after adopting the argers suggestion that anyone who snores should eat less than the average person.

　　In addition, the arguers conclusion that more excercises should be taken by the those who snore is seriously undermined by the common sense given in the argument, which points out the sleep apnea caused by snore results in the tiredness of the snorer during the day. Can such a tired person take a lot of exercisers besides his work or study? the answer is obviously seem. anyone who has basic logical-deducing ability would see the critical flaw in the argument.

　　In sum, unless the reslut of a further scientific study can demonstrate that the weight-gaining propensity among the snorers is caused by lacking of excercise and can be solved by eating less, the arguers conclusion about this medical issue is unfounded.

　　评注：开头两段作者什么都没谈，就归纳了论据结论用了一段耗去100多字，居然还不过瘾，又独劈一段就为了说明它有问题，又是几十字，加上结尾，非主体共耗去200多字，接近全文一半，这样的谋篇布局实在让人心寒。可见作者没有丝毫写作结构性的知识，完全凭借自己的一相情愿在抖包袱。而下面的范文尽管开头也作了概括，但是点到即止，将文章的中心全部扑在批驳论证上，并且主次分明，从而保证了良好的结构协调性，请读者品品。

The argument astonishingly deduces a conclusion of the easiness to get fatter for the particular group of people who snore at sleep, and accordingly recommends eating less and strengthening the intense of exercises to avoid such trend. While the arguer established his demonstration on the tenable basis of a well-known discovery accepted by public, this argument, however, seems to me a wholly ramshackle one needed to scrutiny.

　　To begin with, what I cannot make clear since now is the leap from the mere fact of lacking exercise to the aptness for gaining weight, which sounds no necessary cause-and-effect relationship between them. It might be true of the evidence the arguer takes out to show that sleep apnea can interrupt the normal sleeping tempo and hence results the over exhaustion at diurnal work, which obliquely influence the exercises necessarily for these people. The extent of the arguers inference can only reach this level, to further exploit the aftermath concerning the putting on weight still waits for more information, such as the authoritative report proving such potential nexus, or otherwise, the arguer is only resting the assertion on a gratuitous assumption.

　　Another obvious cynosure we facilely notice is the recommendation of eating less to relieve the inevitable current for weight growing, which is more unsubstantial. In the whole article, the arguers claim range only spread to the layer of lacking exercises, referring to the habits of diets is a sudden idea out of any sign predicted, thus acts the role of invalid deduction. Also, the arguer presumptuously holds the conviction of any person who snores, ought to take the measure for stint eating, which works against commonsensical knowledge of treating different people by choosing different remedies, at all no two individuals are totally equivalent. Once escaping the condition of eluding such confusion, we are able to, too, recognize the suggestion of recommending those peoples joining more exercises are, on the contrary, counterproductive. Even if the prerequisites of peoples weight problem actually stems from this very case of fatigue, then more activities mean more fatigue at daily time enjoyed by them, and the circulation undeniably switches to the opposite side.

　　To sum up, starting from the ridiculous basement to the final fallacious recommendation, the arguer cursorily treat the gross deduction process, and add additional vulnerable announcement in the brittle body of the argument, which ultimately results the further discretion directly leads to its destiny of rebuff.