新GMAT考生Argument写作实例点评

　　Argument的题目是：

　　The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College， a private institute， to the colleges governing committee.We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation， arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But 80 percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the students government wanted the school to remain all female， and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female， therefore， will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially.

　　Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

　　该考生Argument的全文如下（考生原创回忆）：

　　The recommendation made by the president and administrative staff of a private institution to the colleges governing committee claimed that the century-old tradition of all-female education are supposed to maintain instead of admitting men into its program. The claim seems to be well-reasoned and trustworthy at the first glance， however，considering the weak evidence provided by the institution， the conclusion is unconvincing and unreliable.

　　The institution has failed to take opinions from other groups into consideration. It is mentioned in the recommendation that a majority of faculty members indeed voted for coeducation， believing that the change is about to stimulate more students to apply to Grove. The call for coeducation in this college is neglected by the institution for it focuses on the results of a survey conducted by the student government. The scope， number and range of the students responded to the interview are never known to us， whats more， whether the sample questions appeared on the survey are representative is very questionable. It is very likely that the survey is conducted among a small group of student who strongly advocate preserving the long tradition of all-female education. Correspondingly， the number of 80 percent is meaningless if we are kept in dark of the exact numbers of these interviewees.

　　Supposing it is the fact that many people want to keep the tradition unchanged， there is no direct connection between keeping the tradition and improving morale among students. The reason why the respondents are unwilling to admit men into its program might come from the fear that women are overcome by men or from the avoidance of rearrangement of the curriculum. It is true that over half of the alumni interviewed also opposed coeducation. At this time， a separate survey was conducted. Naturally， some questions are aroused in our heads. What are the differences between the survey conducted by the student government and the separate survey carried out among alumni？ How many alumni have participated in the research？ It is more likely that the contents of two surveys are different， as a consequence， the results of two researches couldnt be added up together simply. Whats more， whether the alumni supporting the college financially have been investigated in the survey is irresolute. What if the less half of the alumni maintain to provide financial support to the college are in favor of coeducation？ Therefore， keeping the long history tradition is likely to impair the financial support rather than strengthen it.

　　Overall， the conclusion drawn by the private institution is unreliable for the foundation of the outcome is unstable and unconvincing. Before any final decision is made about the change of the long traditions of all-male education， the colleges governing committee are required to take all possible alternatives into consideration.

　　由这篇Argument来看，该考生的运气是不错的，因为这个Argument题目的推理/论证谬误相对较为明显，基本上就两个：第一，调查统计类谬误;第二，因为前提到结论的过大跨越而导致的逻辑推不出的谬误。

　　同该考生的Issue作文比，考生对自己的这篇Argument的写作显然信心十足。这从考生对前述两个逻辑谬误的描述和论证可以清楚地看出来。

　　我在这里想强调的是：Argument的写作绝对不仅仅是简单地找寻题目中的逻辑漏洞;更重要的是要对那些逻辑谬误之所以为谬误的论证。做到这一点，至少有三件事要做：第一，指出逻辑谬误;第二，举例说明逻辑谬误的存在;第三，提供别样解释（alternative explanations）来展示逻辑谬误。在这三方面，这个考生做的都不错，对题目中论者的逻辑链做了清晰的梳理和充分的论证。

　　最可贵的是，显然因为信心和从容的缘故，考生的语言表达流畅多了，尽管仍有些不必要的小问题。这为考生Argument的分析自然更增亮色。

　　综合总体水平，上述两篇作文得5分应该不算意外。