GRE寫作官方題庫高頻ARGUMENT題目滿分范文分享：preserve century-old tradition of all-female education

　　GRE作文雖然有官方題庫，但題目總數(shù)太多讓考生難以做到全部練一遍，因此看完題目直接看對應(yīng)的高分范文學(xué)習(xí)寫法思路就成為了更有效率的做法。下面小編就來為大家提供ARGUMENT題庫高頻作文題目的滿分范文賞析。

　　GRE作文官方題庫ARGUMENT題目：

　　The president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, made the following recommendation to the college's 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 eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student 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."

　　滿分范文賞析

　　In this memo Grove College's administration recommends preserving its tradition of admitting only female students. The administration admits that most faculty members are in favor of a co-educational policy but the administration defends its recommendation by citing a student government survey in which 80% of student respondents and more than 50% of alumni respondents reported that they favor the current policy. The administration reasons that preserving the status quo would improve student morale and help ensure continued alumni donations to Grove. While the argument seems sensible, it is flawed in several critical respects.

　　【此段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument開頭段結(jié)構(gòu)，即：C – E - F的開頭結(jié)構(gòu)，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下來的一句話概括了原文為了支持他的結(jié)論所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文在邏輯上存在F(Flaw)。

　　【此段功能】

　　本段作為Argument開頭段，具體功能就在發(fā)起攻擊。首先，概括原文的結(jié)論：Grove College(簡稱G)推薦表持只錄取女學(xué)生的傳統(tǒng)。接下來分別列舉了原文為了支持這個(gè)結(jié)論引用的證據(jù)：survey表明80%的學(xué)生參與者以及50%的校友參與者支持現(xiàn)在的政策，administration認(rèn)為維持現(xiàn)狀可以提升學(xué)生士氣并獲得校友的持續(xù)捐助，論據(jù)的歸納用于鋪墊出正文段的具體攻擊。最后點(diǎn)出原文存在邏輯錯誤，引出后面的分析。

　　First, the statistical reliability of the survey itself comes into question. If a disproportionate number of the survey's respondents were newer students, then the survey results would distort the student body's opinion as a group. With respect to the alumni survey, perhaps fewer alumni who donate substantial sums to Grove responded to the survey than other alumni did. If so, then the survey results would distort the comparison between the total amounts of future donations. Besides, the memo provides no information about what percentage of Grove's students and alumni responded to the surveys.

　　【此段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即：概括第一個(gè)邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和原文犯錯位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【此段功能】

　　本段作為正文第一段，攻擊文章犯的主要邏輯錯誤：調(diào)查類錯誤。作者認(rèn)為原文所引用的調(diào)查存在疑問。進(jìn)一步，作者提出幾種可能性來質(zhì)疑原文中的調(diào)查。學(xué)生樣本可能是disproportion的，導(dǎo)致調(diào)查結(jié)果不能反映學(xué)生的整體情況;alumni調(diào)查得到的回復(fù)可能很少來自會捐錢的校友。同時(shí)，作者還指出，原文中沒有提到student和alumni調(diào)查的比例。

　　Secondly, the administration hastily assumes that Grove's alumni, as a group, would be less inclined to donate money if Grove begins admitting male students. This aspect of Grove's admission policy is only one of many factors that might affect alumni donations. For example, since Grove's faculty are generally in favor of changing the policy, perhaps the change would improve faculty moral and therefore the quality of instruction would increase. Perhaps, in the case of overall academic improvement (which could hypothetically occur as a result of the change) alumni would be even more included to offer financial support. So, if the particular alumni who are in a position to make the largest contributions are presented with an argument that establishes a link between faculty morale and overall improvement, an increase in donations by these individuals could occur.

　　【此段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即：概括第二個(gè)邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和原文犯錯位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【此段功能】

　　本段作為正文第二段，攻擊文章犯的主要邏輯錯誤：錯誤因果。作者認(rèn)為原文中“如果招收男學(xué)生，校友不傾向于捐錢”這一論斷是毫無邏輯的，因?yàn)檫@只是G學(xué)校政策中的一條。進(jìn)一步，作者提出其他可能性來反駁原文中的論斷，G學(xué)校的教工支持改革，改革會使教工士氣提高并提高教學(xué)質(zhì)量?？赡芸傮w教學(xué)質(zhì)量的提高會使alumni更傾向于捐款。

　　Finally, the administration's argument that student morale would improve under the status quo is logically unsound in two respects. First, the administration provides no reason why morale would improve, as opposed to remaining at its current level, if the status quo is simply maintained. Second, the administration cannot really predict how the morale of the student body would be affected by a policy change.

　　【此段結(jié)構(gòu)】

　　本段采用了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Argument正文段結(jié)構(gòu)，即：概括第三個(gè)邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和原文犯錯位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【此段功能】

　　本段作為正文第三段，攻擊文章犯的主要邏輯錯誤：錯誤因果。作者認(rèn)為原文中“學(xué)生的士氣會因?yàn)檎叩牟蛔兌岣?rdquo;這一論斷是不正確的。作者提出了兩個(gè)原因：首先administration沒有說明導(dǎo)致士氣上升或下降的原因。其次，administration沒有說明改革對學(xué)生士氣產(chǎn)生的影響。