GRE写作走出老套重在创新与务实，附Argument191,刚开始学写Argument时，总是先学习常见逻辑错误，什么hasty/overgeneralization,falseanalogy,unwarrantedassumption等等,久而久之,我们一看到argument,就将逻辑错误套用相应的上述语句.再看下面的模板(源自上海新东方付顺贤讲义,孙远一书中也有相似处),你会发觉中国人几乎每篇习作或多或少都有其影子.
Theauthorconcludesthat…Tosupporttheconclusion,theauthorreasonsthat…Theauthoralsopointsoutthat…However,theargumentisflawedforseveralreasons.Inthefirstplace,theauthorunfairlyassumesthat…however,theauthorfailstosubstantiatethiscrucialassumption.Absentsuchevidence,itisjustlikelythat……Inconclusion,thisargumentisunacceptableasitstands.Tobetterevaluatetheeargument,theauthormust…tostrengthentheargument,the
authorwouldhavetodemonstratethat…
初学的人(包括我自己)都会惊叹多好的句子啊,可当我真正将这些运用到文章这种去时却发现,所有人都这么写,这不成了八股了吗?
再看看ETS的范文,真是大开眼界,他们的开头与结尾也都很有创意。想想也是每个人看到题目的反应都是不同的，最想说的话也不可能都用一种模式表达。此外，其论述也令人心服口服.然而与付顺贤或孙远的模板恰恰相反的是，大多5，6分的文章都没有在文章中具体指明是何种逻辑错误（见上文），而是以平实的口吻并且站在决策者（或是CEO或是universitypresident）的角度，剖析，假设，批驳。这种写法的好处在于能激起阅卷人的共鸣。别说他们了，我在读文章时也有同感。（我要是这家公司的头也不会把钱丢在那个项目；我要是住在A镇的话，也不会同意把这块地作为B用；等）具体例子可下载满分网的36篇ETS发布的范文，这里不再螯述。
有人会反对说，付顺贤在所有写作考试中都得6分，他的指导不会错的。但是，要知道他们的整体写作水平很高，不象我们用了漂亮的模板而其他内容与模板的语气用词等格格不入，反而弄巧成拙，显得有片断抄袭倾向。而且与我们竞争的主要对手，美国及其他英语国家的学生，英语造诣更没法比，我们再用字漂亮商在花功夫也无济于事。还不如顺应ETS的初衷，在逻辑错误上有独到见解，提出心悦诚服的理由。这一点，要多学学6分范文。
下面的一篇习作，是我站在文章中决策者的角度，设身处地的寻找了几个错误，不知有没有达到预期目标。举例说明：
191ThefollowingisaletterfromaprofessoratXanaduCollegetothecollege”spresident.”Thedevelopmentofanextensivecomputer-basedlong-distancelearningprogramwillenhancethereputationofXanaduCollege.Thisprogramwouldallowmorestudentstoenrollinourcourses,therebyincreasingourincomefromstudenttuition.Traditionalcoursescouldeasilybeadaptedfordistancelearners,aswasshownbytheadaptationoftwotraditionalcoursesforourdistancelearningtrialprojectlastyear.Also,byusingcomputerprogramsandtapedlectures,facultywillhavefewerclassroomobligationsandmoretimetoengageinextensiveresearch,therebyenhancingthereputationofXanadu.”
看完文章后，我相信大家也会列出以下几点错误或更多：
ü建议带有部门利益，各学科教学方法不同
ü试样成功的部门不能代表全部
ü该项目本身有缺陷：增加成本，学费增加，学生负担重，可能转学
ü学校的声誉有各个因素组成
然而怎样把上述几点归类，有机结合，且看我的文章：
ThelettertothepresidentofXanaduCollegeisnotsufficientlyconvincingintermsoftheevidencegiven.Consideringthatthesuggestionwasmadebyaprofessorfromparticulardepartment,onemaydoubttherepresentativenessofhisrequest.Isitmerelyaone-sidedargumentintheinterestofhisdepartmentinsteadofallorforthesakeoftheprofessorhimself?
Tocorroboratehisargument,theprofessorciteseasyadaptationofstudentsasevidence,butcanthestudentsinthetrialprojectbelongtothecomputersciencedepartmentwhoismoreadaptedinsoftwareoperating.Giventhathistryoutiswellrepresented,therearemanyotherfactorstodeterminethenecessityofitsextensiontothewholecampus.Thedecisionmakersshouldtakeintoaccountthedisparityamongdepartmentsinteachingmethod.Someisciplinesrequiretimelyinstructionofteacherswhomightimparttechniquesofsketchingforfineartstudentsorrectifythepronunciationoffreshmenstudyingforeignlanguage,forexample.Forthestudentsinthesedepartmentsthataddressalotofview-exchangebetweenfacultyandstudents,thelong-distancelearningprogrammightinhibittheirprogress.Whatmakestheconclusionfarfromcogentliesinthelackoffeedbacksfromstudents,theultimateuseroftheprogram.Theprofessorprovidesnoconcretefiguresindicatingthecausalrelationbetweentheimplementationoftheprogramandhigherenrollmentstogetherwithensuingmoreincome.
It’scommonsensethatnewfacilitiesinevitablyincreaseexpenditure.Thiscostraisingshownintheschool’sbalancesheetwouldbetransferredtonowherebuttothestudents’account,therebyintensifyingtheirburdenoftuition.Whatmakesmaterworse;theremotestudyprojectoftenregardspersonaldesktoporlaptopasprerequisite.Whatifsomelessaffluentstudentscouldnotaffordsucha“luxury”?Willtheycontinuetostayratherthanmovetoacheaperschoolwheretheycouldacquirenolessknowledge?
Anotherpointthattheprofessorstressesisthatthemoreengagementinextensiveresearchseemsrationalizestheprogram.HecontendsthatresearchcouldenhancethereputationofXanadu.However,thingscouldwellgoesagainsthim.Foreonething,whethertheextratimewouldreallybeutilizedtoconductresearchisopentoquestion;foranother,theactualstudyqualityundertheno-respondingteachingmodehasyetbeenprovedtobesuperiortopreviousmethods.Sinceallcoursesmightroutinelybepre-recordedafterinstallingtheprogram,eacherscouldbelessresponsivetojustifyhisteachingrateofprocessaccordingtotudents’performance.
Likewise,studentsmightfindtheirprofessorslessaccessibleastheofficehoursinproportiontoclassroomobligationdecrease.Alltheseconsequencesconsidered,thesuggestedprogramwouldoffsetitspositiveeffect,ifany,andevendebasetheschool’sreputation.Theargumentforlaunchingthenewprogramcouldprovidemoreinformationconcerningthestudent’sattitudes.Beforeassessingitsimpactonschool’sreputation,widersurveyandinvestigationshouldbeconductedinalldepartmentsandamongstudentsfromvariedfamiliestoensureitsfeasibility.Afterall,it’snosmallsumforthepresidenttoallocate.(502)
