GRE寫(xiě)作范文學(xué)習(xí)：游樂(lè)設(shè)施

　　In surveys, Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should, for that reason, devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.

　　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.

　　【滿分范文賞析】

　　While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, the author fails to make an argument for the justification of increased monetary resources based on the potential of increased recreational patronage of the river. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本文采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument開(kāi)頭段結(jié)構(gòu)，即C—A—F的開(kāi)頭結(jié)構(gòu)。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后簡(jiǎn)要提及原文為支持其結(jié)論所引用的一系列Assumption及細(xì)節(jié)，最后給出開(kāi)頭段到正文段的過(guò)渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即這些Assumption無(wú)法讓原文的結(jié)論具有說(shuō)服力。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為Argument開(kāi)頭段，本段具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結(jié)論，即Mason政府應(yīng)當(dāng)為沿河游樂(lè)設(shè)施投入更多的金錢(qián)。本段接下來(lái)提到了原文中為支持之前的Conclusion所提供的證據(jù)，包括人們潛在的水上娛樂(lè)以及更干凈的河水質(zhì)量的需求。文章提及這些信息，為是在正文段中對(duì)這些Assumption即將進(jìn)行的具體攻擊做鋪墊。

　　Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward ranking river sports over a less attractive option. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live in the vicinity of the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. Unless the survey is provided, analyzed, and found to be of use for the case presented above, it cannot be accepted as fully representative, valid, and reliable.

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即先是提及原文的第一個(gè)邏輯錯(cuò)誤，之后分析該邏輯錯(cuò)誤的原因，接下來(lái)，進(jìn)一步分析這樣的錯(cuò)誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第一段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第一個(gè)重要邏輯錯(cuò)誤——樣本類錯(cuò)誤。對(duì)于原文當(dāng)中提到的Survey，本文并不認(rèn)為這樣的調(diào)查是有說(shuō)服力的。比如，調(diào)查的樣本數(shù)量，調(diào)查的問(wèn)題內(nèi)容，調(diào)查的方式等等，都可能對(duì)這個(gè)調(diào)查的公正性產(chǎn)生消極的作用。所以，原文的關(guān)于調(diào)查具有說(shuō)服力的Assumption是不合理的。

　　Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smells bad. While a polluted, stinking river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen the argument, a full and complete survey should be performed for the explicit purpose of gather opinions regarding the matter at hand.

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即先是提及原文的第二個(gè)邏輯錯(cuò)誤，之后分析該邏輯錯(cuò)誤的原因，接下來(lái)，進(jìn)一步分析這樣的錯(cuò)誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第二段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第二個(gè)重要邏輯錯(cuò)誤——因果類錯(cuò)誤。原文提到，居民們抱怨由于河水質(zhì)量問(wèn)題而很少下水去做娛樂(lè)。但是，這樣的觀點(diǎn)在沒(méi)有客觀證據(jù)的支持下是不足讓人信服的。有可能是因?yàn)槠渌?，而非河水質(zhì)量，導(dǎo)致了居民們不愿意下水娛樂(lè)的現(xiàn)象。所以，原文的關(guān)于河水質(zhì)量和人們下水娛樂(lè)的因果關(guān)系的Assumption是不合理的。

　　Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river cleanup will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems that can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and smell is caused by pollution, this could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water that emit a strong smell of sulfur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a cleanup. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon the quality of water or river usage. Regardless of whether or not the river's quality can be improved, the author does not effectively demonstrate that there is a connection between water quality and river usage.

　　【本段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即先是提及原文的第三個(gè)邏輯錯(cuò)誤，之后分析該邏輯錯(cuò)誤的原因，接下來(lái)，進(jìn)一步分析這樣的錯(cuò)誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第三段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第三個(gè)重要邏輯錯(cuò)誤——因果類錯(cuò)誤。原文提到，如果河水質(zhì)量問(wèn)題得到了解決，人們就能夠進(jìn)行更多的水上娛樂(lè)。但是，這樣的觀點(diǎn)是建立在“河水質(zhì)量問(wèn)題能夠得到解決”的Assumption上的。而如果因?yàn)榉N種原因這個(gè)問(wèn)題得不到或者很難得到解決，那么人們并不能進(jìn)行更多的水上娛樂(lè)。所以，原文的河水質(zhì)量能夠得到解決的Assumption是不合理的。