GRE作文argument逻辑攻击点有哪些

GRE写作中的两篇文章要求不同，ISSUE作为立论文类似大家常写的议论文难度不大。下面小编就和大家分享GRE作文ARGU如何寻找逻辑攻击点，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE作文ARGU如何寻找逻辑攻击点

GRE作文argument逻辑攻击点有哪些?

首先，小编为大家介绍一些在argument作文题目中比较常见的标志性逻辑漏洞。假如大家在读完题目第一时间没有发现逻辑问题，那么考虑一下这些逻辑漏洞可能会为大家带来不少写作灵感。

基本常识类漏洞

虽然GRE考试本身出于公平的原则并没有对各类学科的高深专业知识提出要求，但考生还是需要具备一定的相关基础常识，比如GRE考试中经常涉及的社会、文化、经济、科技等常见主题的基本概念，都应该有所了解。因为GRE作文中，常常会出现一些涉及这些基本知识的逻辑漏洞。如果考生能够对这些知识有所了解，就能在文章题目中发现更多问题。

绝对性用词错误

如果大家读过一些专业性较强的原版杂志报纸，比如《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》或《经济学人》，就会发现其中很多文章都具备GRE作文考试最喜欢的特质：思考全面，观点平衡，有理有据。极端的观点和结论在GRE作文中鲜少有正确的时候，也往往会是最主要的攻击论点。因此，如果考生在题目的结论中看到了诸如“must”或者“undoubtedly”之类的用词，那么这就是极端结论的最好证明。

模糊表述问题

在GRE写作的题目中，诸如 “few”, “many”, “more”, “less”, and “some”之类的用词常可以看到，这些词虽然在一定程度上具备数字含义，本身却并无法表达出具体的数字，可以说是含义相对模糊不清的用词。如果题目中的论述，特别是涉及数据的部分是建立在这些模糊表达上而得出的结论，那么这个论述本身就存在问题，常常能成为可攻击的逻辑漏洞。

错误推论漏洞

有些题目，常会根据一个较小的例子来得出一个很大的结论。这种以小见大的做法看似很好，但其实常常存在问题。比如一类事物中的A,B,C可能具备一些特性，能够概括出某个共同的结论，但这结论并不一定就能适用于该类事物中的所有不同个体，而这种错误的一概而论，也可以成为考生论述中的突破口。

比较对象不当扩展

有时候，作文题目中会首先列出事物A的前提和结论，并根据A和事物B的相近性，把前提和结论套用到事物B上，这样就往往会产生不恰当的比较，从而形成逻辑上的问题，举例来说：曾看到过一篇例文，讲述人和狗的肥胖问题，把人的肥胖原因和新城代谢等因此直接套用到狗的身上然后得出结论，这就是一种不恰当的比较。

GRE写作挑攻击点要分清主次

如上文所说，其实很多时候一篇argument题目素材里，存在的逻辑漏洞往往不止一处，对于一些写作驳论文经验丰富的考生来说，有些题目甚至一眼望去就是千疮百孔的。但这并不代表大家随便抓住一点就可以写出很有说服力的文章。学会区分逻辑漏洞的主要和次要，集中精力从主要漏洞入手进行写作才能让文章更有说服力。

总而言之，想要写好GRE写作的ARGUMENT驳论文还是需要一定技巧和方法的。假如大家在面对ARGUMENT时还处于找不到逻辑漏洞无从驳起的阶段，那么上文中提到的这些内容，相信会给大家带来一些提示和帮助。

GRE写作满分范文

"Wisdom is rightfully attributed not to people who know what to look for in life but to people who know what to overlook."

The quotation is certainly correct, insofar as it describes at least an element of wisdom. In other words, I do agree with the proposition, subject to the proviso that the achievement of wisdom may well also involve other traits or attributes.

Having qualified my answer somewhat, I must endorse the principles put forth in the quotation. Overlooking -- or, perhaps, forgetting -- is a crucial skill one needs to master in order to navigate the often-treacherous paths of life without undue torment. From my own experience, and from observations of friends, family members and business associates, I am well aware of the pitfalls which await those who fail to overlook the petty, the unnecessary and the irrelevant.

In modern America, as it happens, the importance of overlooking is probably greater than ever before. Even a person trying to lead a quiet, simple life encounters an endless stream of annoyances, errors and petty demands such as paperwork, filing numbers and taxes; long lines at the bank; exponentially aggravating traffic jams and sullen, uncooperative coworkers and neighbors. Those of us who cannot overlook such annoyances will invariably succumb to self-defeating dismay.

The ability to overlook also reflects a healthy sense of proportion and priorities. The wise "overlooker" will ignore his or her spouse's failings after making a considered judgment that these are outweighed, in the long run, by greater and more significant strengths. for example, what wise or reasonable person would destroy a marriage solely because an otherwise faithful, kind, generous, intelligent and prosperous partner occasionally tosses socks on the floor?

An elderly aunt of mine makes a striking example. Long widowed, she now spends her days sitting in her apartment, carping endlessly about the many relatives who have slighted her. Nobody calls enough. Nobody pays her any atention. Nobody cares, she says.

And, indeed, why should they? Who wants to visit with someone, elderly or otherwise, who does nothing but complain, find fault and scour for slights? Were she wiser, perhaps she would ignore or even suppress her interminable grievances and take more interest in the world at large, including the very individuals whose attention she purportedly craves.

The paradigm of overlooking applies with equal force in the worlds of business and politics. Look at Richard Nixon: a brilliant, often original thinker, he was nonetheless continually obsessed with minutiae and the unimportant. On some level, I'm sure, he himself realized the dramatic impact of such a glaring character flaw; when the situation was long past salvaging, he exhorted his staff and friends to "Never be petty," a dictum he honored far more in the breach than in the observance.

More prosaically, in business and everyday life, it is indeed the wise person who overlooks or ignores a vast amount. Why come home every day nurturing a grudge? Why spend time grappling with activities, people or attitudes which bring nothing but pain and torment? Still, most of us do, at least somewhat, and find ourselves far diminished for it.

In sum, I think it's safe to say that much in this world merits not even a cursory examination, and those among us are wiser and happier who can successfully budget their time and energy in order to avoid negativity.

Comments:

This is a thoughtful, well-articulated analysis of the issue.

The response opens with a clear endorsement of the stated claim, along with an acknowledgement that wisdom involves additional traits. The writer then begins building an argument that modern life is so full of "petty annoyances" that it would be "self-defeating" to pay much attention to them. Using, first, examples that illustrate the trivial demands encountered everyday (e.g., paperwork, traffic jams), the analysis moves on to personal types of experiences (a partner annoying habits; an aunt self-pity) and then to politics, where, the writer implies, Nixon met his political demise at least partly because of his obsession with "minutiae and the unimportant." The examples clearly support the writer position and lead effectively to the concluding observation about learning to "budget" our time and energy to avoid the negative aspects of life.

In several places, the skillful use of questions helps move the analysis along. And throughout, the skillful use of sentence variety and precise vocabulary combine to convey meaning effectively, as in this excerpt: "when the situation was long past salvaging, he [Nixon] exhorted his staff and friends to a dictum he honored far more in the breach than in the observance." This kind of insightful, articulate analysis merits a score of 6.

GRE写作满分范文

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

Since the residents are changing the original statement that complies with the conditions of what an undeveloped site is, it is their responsibility to make sure that certain restrictions are followed. According to the definition of undeveloped land, keeping the natural elements and avoiding the tearing down of this elements is an issue to consider even if it is a school built on the site.

Even though the residents originally wanted to keep the property undeveloped and unbuilt, the fact that they emphasize that this area will subtantially be devoted to athletic fields, strongly supports the idea of the residents using the land for similar activities than that of the public parkland, . Moreover, the fact that the residents mentioned the community as being one where children will be the main participants of this area is persuasive enough to make this argument a strong one.

Comments:

This response is seriously flawed. The first paragraph obliquely addresses the argument made in the topic, but stops short of logical analysis. The second paragraph agrees with the argument and supports its assumptions. In essence, the writer exhibits an uncritical acceptance of the argument.

Aside from a few minor errors, the writer has control over syntax, grammar, and the conventions of standard written English. This response, though, warrants a score of 2, because it offers no discernible analysis of the logic of the argument.