GMAT考试：Argument写作范文四十三

　　83.

　　The conclusion of this argument is that 15-year-olds should be eligible to obtain a drivers license. The author employs two lines of reasoning to reach this conclusion. In the first the author reasons that since older drivers can retain their driving privileges by simply renewing their licenses, 15-year-olds should be eligible to obtain a license. In the second, the author reasons that 15-year-olds are physically more capable than older drivers of performing the various skills associated with driving s vehicle and thus should be eligible to get a license. This argument is unconvincing for a couple of reasons.

　　In the first place, the author assumes that there are no relevant differences between 15-year-olds and older drivers that would justify treating them differently. This assumption is dearly mistaken. The major difference between the two groups, and the major reason 15-year-olds are denied driving privileges, is their relative lack of emotional maturity and social responsibility. This difference is sufficient to justify the policy of a owing older drivers to renew their driving privileges while at the same time denying these privileges to 15-year-olds.

　　In the second place, even if it is granted that fifteen year olds possess better night vision, reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and are less disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings than older drivers, these abilities do not qualify them to obtain a drivers license. The author assumes that physical capabilities are the only attributes necessary to operate a motor vehicle. But this assumption is clearly mistaken. In addition to these abilities, drivers must be able to exercise good judgment in all types of driving situations and conditions and must be cognizant of the consequences of their decisions and actions when driving. It is because 15-year-olds typically lack these latter abilities that they are denied driving privileges.

　　In sum, the authors argument fails to take into consideration important differences between older drivers and 15-year-olds that justify denying driving

　　privileges to the younger group while at the same time allowing older drivers to retain their privileges by simply renewing their license.

　　84.

　　This advertisement for How to Write a Screenplay... concludes that a writer is more likely to be successful by writing original screenplays than by writing books. The ads reasoning is based on two claims: the average film tends to be more profitable than even best-selling books, and film producers are more likely to make movies based on original screenplays than on books because in recent years the films that have sold the most tickets have usually been based on original screenplays. I find the ad unconvincing, on three grounds.

　　First, the mere fact that ticket sales in recent years for screenplay-based movies have exceeded those for book-based movies is insufficient evidence to conclude that writing screenplays now provides greater financial opportunity for writers. Ticket-sale statistics from only a few recent years are not necessarily a good indicator of future trends. It is possible that fees paid by movie studios for screenplays might decrease in the future relative to those for book rights. Moreover. the argument is based on number of ticket sales, not on movie-studio profits or writers Sees. It is possible that studio profits and writer fees have actually been greater recently for book-based movies than for those based on original screenplays.

　　Another problem with the ad is that it assumes a writer must make an either-or choice from the outset between writing books and writing screenplays. The argument fails to rule out the possibility that a writer engage in both types of writing as well as other types. In fact. a writer may be more successful by doing so. Writing in various genres might improve ones effectiveness in each of them. Also, writing a book may be an effective first step to producing a screenplay. In any event, the ad provides no justification for the mutually exclusive choice it imposes on the writer.

　　A third problem with the ad is its ambiguous use of the word successful. The argument simply equates success with movie ticket sales. However, many writers may define writing success in other terms, such as intellectual or artistic fulfillment. The ads advice that writing screenplays is the best way to achieve writing success ignores other definitions of success.

　　In conclusion, this quick pitch for a book is based on simplistic assumptions about ticket sales and writer fees, and on an overly narrow definition of success in writing. To better evaluate this argument, at the very least we would need to know the number of years the cited statistic was based on, and the extent to which ticket sales reflect movie studio profits and writer fees.