托福(TOEFL)

奏响中国托福培训最强者
当前位置:首页 >托福 > 托福综合 > 正文
【GRE写作】Argument 精选真题范文(四十五)
2021-04-07 14:23   作者:新航道   阅读量:

上期,我们讲了在措辞的时候突出逻辑疑点的类型且给出了3个基于“passage”的例子。

在拿到一个passage后,我们需要先梳理和分析题目本身的逻辑思路(也就是作者的逻辑思路)。然而如何快速正确地梳理一个passage题目本身的逻辑思路,一起学习今日的内容吧。

精选真题

The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.


"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."

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.


思路分析&梳理

拿到passage后,我们在做任何分析之前,需要梳理题目本身的逻辑思路(也就是作者的逻辑思路)。就这个passage本身的思路,我们做出如下的梳理:


1)作者首先明确一个事实 Erosion of beach sand 导致恶果:a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry。


2)于是,作者意图 :stop the erosion。

那么,作者的具体的办法是:charge people for using the beaches。并且,从这里开始了一个逻辑链:


*第一步:charge people for using the beaches (收费筹钱),è replenishing the sand (有钱补沙)。这一步动作基于的理由是:this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term。


* 这一步得到的结果:help protect buildings along our shores (补沙护楼)è reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms (降低严重的暴风雨对楼的损害的风险)。作者认为可以得到这个理想的结果的理由是:replenishing the sand was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia.


* 最后会得到的结果是:tourist industry will improve over the long term (沙滩和楼好了,旅游业就长期的好了)。


3)至此,作者的逻辑闭环形成。


只有当我们搞清楚passage的作者的思路的时候,才有可能仔细检查每一个环节以及发现其中的问题:


质疑作者的思路

1) 第一步“收费筹钱”的理由有什么specific evidence作为依据么?文中并没有说收多少钱、游客可能愿意付钱或者愿意付多少钱,凭什么就可以判定收钱只会在“短期内”惹恼“很小一部分游客”呢?万一是“很大一部分游客”“很长时间内”因为收费而不来了呢?


2) 第一步得到的结果中,“补沙”真的可以实现“护楼”么?首先,有没有specific evidence可以证明Batia的这个做法成功护楼了?毕竟文中只是说这样做了,没说成功。其次,就算Batia成功了,有没有specific evidence说明Tria的情况和条件跟Batia一模一样?毕竟仅仅靠nearby不足以说明这一点。


3) 同时,在第一步得到的结果中,仅仅靠“补沙”就可以实现“降低严重的暴风雨对楼的损害的风险”么?文中并没有specific evidence说明楼受到严重的暴风雨损害的风险仅仅在于脚下的沙子稳不稳。严重的暴风雨会不会带来楼宇的外立面的损害?大楼会不会受到漏雨漏风的损害(比如电路受潮引起火灾)?这些都不是加固脚下的沙子就可以解决的风险。


4) 最后的结论处,“沙滩和楼好了,旅游业就长期的好了”。有没有specific evidence证明Tria已经其它各个方面都做到位了,就差沙子要补,楼要护了?万一有其它方面才是更需要进步的呢?同时,万一整个旅游业不景气呢?那Tria做什么也没用吧。


真题范文·示范段落

以下是针对第一步“收费筹钱”写出的分析示范段落:


The author recommends the charge for using the beaches based on an opinion that the charge would annoy a small number of tourists in the short term. However, this opinion is not evidenced and therefore may prove wrong. The author neither specifies the amount of fee that would be charged nor provides information about how much money tourists would like to pay. In addition, there is no information concerning whether tourists who would accept the charge initially would later change their mind. The lack of these three crucial pieces of evidence renders dubious the author’s opinion about the effect of the fee. In other words, Tria may lose a considerable number of tourists for a long time or even forever, and as a result, the money to replenish the sand may not be successfully raised as planned. 


看完之后,大家可以再次对照上面的中文分析学习领会。

至此,我们发现,梳理题目本身的逻辑思路(也就是作者的逻辑思路)时非常有必要的。


这样的梳理我们可以带着更加明确清晰的目的审视passage的各个逻辑环节,从而就不易出现疏漏了哪里的情况。


热门专题 更多 >>
热门文章 更多 >>
    战略合作单位