Gre寫作是美國所有作文考試中時刻最長而質(zhì)量要求最高的一類作文考試，而在短期內(nèi)提高gre寫作能力不是一天兩天可以完成額，所以我們在備考2011新gre寫作時必然要對問題問題深切的剖析，體味以下優(yōu)異范文的文章結(jié)構(gòu)，以提高新gre寫作的整體分數(shù)。
第四篇文章
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.
Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.
But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.
Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
原題邏輯順序：6月前F提高限速==〉F事故升高==〉E沒提高限速反而事故略減少==〉F要想減少事故就不能提高限速
6分：
The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. 這一句話指出原文存在邏輯問題，這里用的語言很簡單。而不是北美范文中有時堆徹了一堆放之四海皆為準的無關(guān)痛癢的話。很明顯，官方的意思是說這樣的客套話一定要說，但是一定要用最簡潔的形式來說，而同時那些具體問題具體分析性的語言則要詳細的說明白，說清楚。 By ** a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.這個開頭真的非常巧，因為他用一句話達到了兩句話的效果，即同時復述題目并指出問題在哪，而沒有像北美一樣說結(jié)論是什么證據(jù)是什么證據(jù)再說不能支持結(jié)論。設想一下如果我們是考官的話看到這樣的一個開頭得到了一個什么信息呢：此考生已經(jīng)完全讀懂題目了，并且他對原文的邏輯順序也已經(jīng)掌握了。深一點層次來說：aw考試考得是我們的分析能力，這是重點。雖然官方說明也曾經(jīng)強調(diào)理解原文很重要，但是終歸理解能力并不是考試的重點。所以比較好的做法是：分析題目的脈絡，寫出分析性的概括。這里沒有必要單獨再復述題目了因為在分析中已經(jīng)暗含了原文的信息。這里還有一點值得注意：為什么要在第二句話的最前面用comparison這個詞呢，這是有講究的!原文的論證核心就是比較，而這里將此詞提到最前面一是說這是原文的邏輯關(guān)聯(lián)，二是暗示我下面要做的就是圍繞著此比較而進行的。有點類似于主題句的主干提前。這個詞真的是令人發(fā)指的重要，看到后面你就知道了
However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. 這一段是質(zhì)疑一個假設的前提。從前面的幾個范文的分析我們可以看出來，正文body首段質(zhì)疑的都是作者讓步的前提，那么這里的讓步在哪里呢，開頭段并沒有提到阿。確實沒有在第一段提到讓步。但是別著急，在最后一段的第一句，出現(xiàn)了讓步(即since后面的兩點理由)，這不就又對應上了嗎!讓步說F這些市民可能是因為自己的利益或者保護自己的安全才建議取消限速的。那么這里的前提就是是F因為限速才使事故增加的。這一段將這個前提狠狠的質(zhì)疑了一番。論證方法為列舉他因。Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. 列舉了三點他因，有兩點值得注意：一是這里作者前兩點都沒有詳細展開，但這是不是意味著對于比較常識性的例子不用展開呢，不是!同志們，展開并不只有三段論式展開才是展開，誰說這里沒有展開呢?作者實際上已經(jīng)通過定語同位語進行展開了!!比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相補充阿，所以說我們在給出常識性的例子時，要注意通過修飾語的方式進行暗中的展開。判斷我們證明的是否嚴謹是否充足，可以這樣：完全只是用我們提供的信息來推，能不能推出最后的結(jié)果。而最后一點展開的則較為充分，這里看來是因為最后一點有點過于寬泛，必須要進行詳細具體解釋才行。更深一層次的來說作者對于例子的安排也是有詳有略，給人錯落有致的感覺，美。另外一點值得注意的就是，這三個論證中無一例外的都進行了EF的比較，照應了開頭給出的comparison這個詞，作者兌現(xiàn)了自己在開頭的暗示。 It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. 這里作者的論證向前進了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不夠的，我們心里一定要想著提出他因是干什么的。這里指出了他因究竟如何來利用，使得證明原文。即應該多考慮一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。 Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.這和上一句是相照應的，屬于對比性的論證，剛才說F有了他因所以不是限速能解決，這里有說了E也許也是他因才使得情況稍好。整個段落是多么整齊的對仗阿!EF兩地的對比無處不在，而又那么的工整!作者在開頭第二句話的Comparison一詞真的是統(tǒng)領(lǐng)全文的阿!正所謂指哪打哪。
A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.從這一段開始攻擊原文邏輯鏈。本段有四個分論點，本來應該寫四段的。(至于為什么沒有寫三段，我想是因為awintro中說我們可以隨意的選擇段落的數(shù)量，并不會影響最后的結(jié)果。但是，這樣的話前提是閱卷人有足夠的耐心。所以為了保險起見，讓人看著更為清楚些，我還是建議大家分開寫)這里第一個攻擊的就是6個月時間夠不夠。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 這一句話的目的在于復述原文條件，立起靶子。從這里開始攻擊第二點，即天氣的影響。 This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. 對E的論證采用的是經(jīng)典三段論，即天氣差==〉人不出去==〉事故少。However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. 再次進行了EF對比，通過coerced后面的從句進行推演，屬于小展開。也足夠充分。 Again, the demographics of the population are important. 這里對邏輯鏈的第三點進行了攻擊。即人口數(shù)量的問題。 It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 先說E的人可能少。論證方法是加條件后討論。 Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 再說F的人可能多。論證方法同要是加條件后討論。 Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻擊邏輯鏈的第四點，即人們活動的時間。(品味一下本段四個邏輯錯誤的安排順序，時間==)天氣==)人數(shù)==〉人的活動，看似無關(guān)，還是很有講究的阿，這不正是從外在因素到內(nèi)在因素嗎)it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.第四點的論證同樣是采用了兩者的對比。看來作者真是說到做到阿，竟然沒有一次論證沒有對比的!!論證方法為加條件后討論。
Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原來讓步在這呢!其實作者心里一直有數(shù)，只是沒寫出來。但是在正文body的第一段已經(jīng)就其假設進行了討論。我想我們不是作者這樣的牛人，這樣的讓步還是很有必要在第一段體現(xiàn)出來的。 However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.最后提出了建議。我們看到作者對于文章的立意把握得很好，要是換我們來寫，可能會寫限速怎么不好啊。而這文章中限速不管怎么說總是有好的一面，只是常識!所以作者的立意為：不是說限速不好，而是說要考慮全。引申一下，我們一定要對文章的立意有個把握。文章無非就三種立意，一種是好的(就像這樣的為了安全的(比如skate范文))，一種就是不好不壞的(就像為了利益的為了利潤(什么掙錢多啊))，一種是不好的(就像有個說不應該取消安全帶規(guī)定，還有詆毀某人的)。這三種立意的寫法可是完全不同的阿!對于第一種，切記要委婉!最好就是避而不談，而說應該考慮更全面。對于后面兩種，嘿嘿，就得狠點了，尤其是最后一種，就是譴責。后面的文章我會給出分析?？荚囉脮?BR> COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical."
It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis.
Alternatives mentioned are that
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.
Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.
For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.
The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.
This is an impressive 6 paper.
感謝您閱讀《argument全部官方范文分析(6) 》一文，出國留學網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
第四篇文章
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.
Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.
But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.
Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
原題邏輯順序：6月前F提高限速==〉F事故升高==〉E沒提高限速反而事故略減少==〉F要想減少事故就不能提高限速
6分：
The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. 這一句話指出原文存在邏輯問題，這里用的語言很簡單。而不是北美范文中有時堆徹了一堆放之四海皆為準的無關(guān)痛癢的話。很明顯，官方的意思是說這樣的客套話一定要說，但是一定要用最簡潔的形式來說，而同時那些具體問題具體分析性的語言則要詳細的說明白，說清楚。 By ** a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.這個開頭真的非常巧，因為他用一句話達到了兩句話的效果，即同時復述題目并指出問題在哪，而沒有像北美一樣說結(jié)論是什么證據(jù)是什么證據(jù)再說不能支持結(jié)論。設想一下如果我們是考官的話看到這樣的一個開頭得到了一個什么信息呢：此考生已經(jīng)完全讀懂題目了，并且他對原文的邏輯順序也已經(jīng)掌握了。深一點層次來說：aw考試考得是我們的分析能力，這是重點。雖然官方說明也曾經(jīng)強調(diào)理解原文很重要，但是終歸理解能力并不是考試的重點。所以比較好的做法是：分析題目的脈絡，寫出分析性的概括。這里沒有必要單獨再復述題目了因為在分析中已經(jīng)暗含了原文的信息。這里還有一點值得注意：為什么要在第二句話的最前面用comparison這個詞呢，這是有講究的!原文的論證核心就是比較，而這里將此詞提到最前面一是說這是原文的邏輯關(guān)聯(lián)，二是暗示我下面要做的就是圍繞著此比較而進行的。有點類似于主題句的主干提前。這個詞真的是令人發(fā)指的重要，看到后面你就知道了
However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. 這一段是質(zhì)疑一個假設的前提。從前面的幾個范文的分析我們可以看出來，正文body首段質(zhì)疑的都是作者讓步的前提，那么這里的讓步在哪里呢，開頭段并沒有提到阿。確實沒有在第一段提到讓步。但是別著急，在最后一段的第一句，出現(xiàn)了讓步(即since后面的兩點理由)，這不就又對應上了嗎!讓步說F這些市民可能是因為自己的利益或者保護自己的安全才建議取消限速的。那么這里的前提就是是F因為限速才使事故增加的。這一段將這個前提狠狠的質(zhì)疑了一番。論證方法為列舉他因。Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. 列舉了三點他因，有兩點值得注意：一是這里作者前兩點都沒有詳細展開，但這是不是意味著對于比較常識性的例子不用展開呢，不是!同志們，展開并不只有三段論式展開才是展開，誰說這里沒有展開呢?作者實際上已經(jīng)通過定語同位語進行展開了!!比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相補充阿，所以說我們在給出常識性的例子時，要注意通過修飾語的方式進行暗中的展開。判斷我們證明的是否嚴謹是否充足，可以這樣：完全只是用我們提供的信息來推，能不能推出最后的結(jié)果。而最后一點展開的則較為充分，這里看來是因為最后一點有點過于寬泛，必須要進行詳細具體解釋才行。更深一層次的來說作者對于例子的安排也是有詳有略，給人錯落有致的感覺，美。另外一點值得注意的就是，這三個論證中無一例外的都進行了EF的比較，照應了開頭給出的comparison這個詞，作者兌現(xiàn)了自己在開頭的暗示。 It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. 這里作者的論證向前進了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不夠的，我們心里一定要想著提出他因是干什么的。這里指出了他因究竟如何來利用，使得證明原文。即應該多考慮一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。 Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.這和上一句是相照應的，屬于對比性的論證，剛才說F有了他因所以不是限速能解決，這里有說了E也許也是他因才使得情況稍好。整個段落是多么整齊的對仗阿!EF兩地的對比無處不在，而又那么的工整!作者在開頭第二句話的Comparison一詞真的是統(tǒng)領(lǐng)全文的阿!正所謂指哪打哪。
A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.從這一段開始攻擊原文邏輯鏈。本段有四個分論點，本來應該寫四段的。(至于為什么沒有寫三段，我想是因為awintro中說我們可以隨意的選擇段落的數(shù)量，并不會影響最后的結(jié)果。但是，這樣的話前提是閱卷人有足夠的耐心。所以為了保險起見，讓人看著更為清楚些，我還是建議大家分開寫)這里第一個攻擊的就是6個月時間夠不夠。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 這一句話的目的在于復述原文條件，立起靶子。從這里開始攻擊第二點，即天氣的影響。 This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. 對E的論證采用的是經(jīng)典三段論，即天氣差==〉人不出去==〉事故少。However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. 再次進行了EF對比，通過coerced后面的從句進行推演，屬于小展開。也足夠充分。 Again, the demographics of the population are important. 這里對邏輯鏈的第三點進行了攻擊。即人口數(shù)量的問題。 It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 先說E的人可能少。論證方法是加條件后討論。 Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 再說F的人可能多。論證方法同要是加條件后討論。 Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻擊邏輯鏈的第四點，即人們活動的時間。(品味一下本段四個邏輯錯誤的安排順序，時間==)天氣==)人數(shù)==〉人的活動，看似無關(guān)，還是很有講究的阿，這不正是從外在因素到內(nèi)在因素嗎)it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.第四點的論證同樣是采用了兩者的對比。看來作者真是說到做到阿，竟然沒有一次論證沒有對比的!!論證方法為加條件后討論。
Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原來讓步在這呢!其實作者心里一直有數(shù)，只是沒寫出來。但是在正文body的第一段已經(jīng)就其假設進行了討論。我想我們不是作者這樣的牛人，這樣的讓步還是很有必要在第一段體現(xiàn)出來的。 However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.最后提出了建議。我們看到作者對于文章的立意把握得很好，要是換我們來寫，可能會寫限速怎么不好啊。而這文章中限速不管怎么說總是有好的一面，只是常識!所以作者的立意為：不是說限速不好，而是說要考慮全。引申一下，我們一定要對文章的立意有個把握。文章無非就三種立意，一種是好的(就像這樣的為了安全的(比如skate范文))，一種就是不好不壞的(就像為了利益的為了利潤(什么掙錢多啊))，一種是不好的(就像有個說不應該取消安全帶規(guī)定，還有詆毀某人的)。這三種立意的寫法可是完全不同的阿!對于第一種，切記要委婉!最好就是避而不談，而說應該考慮更全面。對于后面兩種，嘿嘿，就得狠點了，尤其是最后一種，就是譴責。后面的文章我會給出分析?？荚囉脮?BR> COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical."
It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis.
Alternatives mentioned are that
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.
Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.
For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.
The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.
This is an impressive 6 paper.
感謝您閱讀《argument全部官方范文分析(6) 》一文，出國留學網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。