美国GRE写作argument全部官方范文分析(7)(3)

　　The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. 最后文章再质疑了结论的可靠性。 The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. 先说建学校这事压根就不靠谱。为什么呢?

　　后面给出了解释。 If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision.The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. 这里通过和购物中心比，得出了结论说当初的投票就是为了大家。这个论证也是全文的亮点，因为他是用原文的条件来攻击原文，它认为购物中心的收入已经是相当高了，但即使这么高的收入也没有原生态公园给每个人带来的收益高，更何况是收益还不如购物中心的学校呢。这里更深层次的隐含意思是：购物中心是所有投资中利润最高的，这都不行，所以任何的改动都是不行的。就必须要保持原生态公园。这里作者的思想多么的锐利。一下子就揪住了原文的一项自我矛盾的地方。The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.最终提出了作者的建议。

　　COMMENTARY考试大-中国教育考试门户网站(www.Examda。com)

　　This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.

　　However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.

　　The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland."

　　Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions.

　　This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."

　　The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."

　　Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions.

　　While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this essay demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing.

　　It clearly earns a 6.

（责任编辑 陈奕璇）