GRE作文入门和进阶九
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it cant stand much reexamination.
I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in peoples diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguers peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.
Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguers elicitation, we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense, Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease? The answer we cant obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.
As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to peoples health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected; and it is just for this point, Im afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article.
silentwings
原则二:大胆创新,敢于说不。
这个原则是就思想内容本身而提出的,主要就ISSUE而言。之所以如此,是因为现在的题库中有太多显而易见的明显带有常识偏见性的话题,比如下面我们要举例说明的这一题:
33.Creating an appealing image has become more important in contemporary society than is the reality or truth behind that image.
我想大部分考生在现场一定会不约而同地对这道题说DISAGREE,因为传统的教育和是非观很容易让我们接受这样的一个观点人不可貌像,海水不可斗量。这样,ETS胆敢认为表面的虚浮外表比实质的东西重要,充分暴露了它资本主义没落腐朽的罪恶本质和虚伪贪婪的丑恶嘴脸,于是打笔一挥,打他个鼻青脸肿再说。
不可否认,这个话题写否定符合正常价值观和正常思维,比较容易找到地方下手,但是平常我们在训练准备作文时,应该在遇到这类难于从反面论证的题目尽量摈弃这种正常思维,而锻炼自己的创新思维,即敢于对自己的陈规思维说不!大家可以发现,ETS找来的每道话题都是经过严格的筛选和试验的,以保证其客观性和公正性,从而无论你对该话题持什么态度,都不会影响你在现实中的表现,从而每个观点阐述就是一种思维逻辑的游戏,ETS不是要看你的思想观点到底出不出格,而是看你将任何一个你所持有的观点论证的天衣无缝。
因为在ISSUE中,你完全可以将一个漏洞百出的话题包装成真理,同样也可将真理辩驳成天大的谬误,这没有关系,对于一个特别注重新思维开发的美国人来说,创新思维无疑是他们最钟爱的东西,这也就是高分作文的一个捷径求新求异!我始终相信,只要肯往这方面想,思维的马达很容易就开动起来,通过不断练习,你真的会发现你的一手铜齿铁牙已经足以让你在GRE作文的考场上称雄称霸,满分是意料中的事。下面我提供两篇范文,第一篇是正常思维论辩,第二篇则是从AGREE的角度来论证,读者可以从中参详一二。
四大因素可能导致苹果步微软后尘
美国军方停止使用中国制造的美国国旗
冬奥会美加冰球大战:谁输了留下比伯!
中国留美学生飙车 洛杉矶上演亡命飞车
应对互联网金融 中国传统银行发起反击
乌克兰总统豪宅花费曝光
囧研究:早起的鸟儿有虫吃?可不一定!
英情侣求婚订婚结婚30分钟全搞定 惊呆全场客人
成功没有捷径 你做好长期奋斗的准备了吗?
“阿凡达”式幻想成真 美科学家利用猴子实现异体控制
四分之一的美国人不知道地球绕着太阳转
《纸牌屋》第二季热播 融入中国元素
Facebook招聘看重:是否能做机器无法做的事
网传土耳其总理与儿子密谋转移财产
研究发现:第一印象很难被改变
斯诺登当选大学校长 荣誉职位任期三年
索契冬奥会闭幕式纠错:四环终于变五环
五个指标助你找到适合自己的公司
“一父两母”基因改造 可避新生儿先天缺陷
患癌女孩公主梦 小镇千人助其圆
贝卢斯科尼77岁离婚 将迎娶28岁女郎
Facebook 190亿元收购WhatsApp
旅行让我们变得更好 今年你打算去哪儿?
巴西小镇惊现狼人影像 晚上九点实施宵禁
朝鲜“第一夫妇”或将迎来第二个孩子
大量神职人员性虐儿童 两年内近400人遭解职
美公司推出斯诺登玩具模型 每款售价99美金
职场榜样:成功人士如何应对坏消息
中国互联网平台新浪微博计划赴美上市
《纸牌屋》:美国政治缩影
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |