新gre作文官方范文全解析（四）

竹林中人

第四篇文章
　　Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.
　　Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.
　　But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.
　　Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
　　原题逻辑顺序：6月前F提高限速==〉F事故升高==〉E没提高限速反而事故略减少==〉F要想减少事故就不能提高限速
　　6分：
　　The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. 这一句话指出原文存在逻辑问题，这里用的语言很简单。而不是北美范文中有时堆彻了一堆放之四海皆为准的无关痛痒的话。很明显，官方的意思是说这样的客套话一定要说，但是一定要用最简洁的形式来说，而同时那些具体问题具体分析性的语言则要详细的说明白，说清楚。 By ** a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.这个开头真的非常巧，因为他用一句话达到了两句话的效果，即同时复述题目并指出问题在哪，而没有像北美一样说结论是什么证据是什么证据再说不能支持结论。设想一下如果我们是考官的话看到这样的一个开头得到了一个什么信息呢：此考生已经完全读懂题目了，并且他对原文的逻辑顺序也已经掌握了。深一点层次来说：aw考试考得是我们的分析能力，这是重点。虽然官方说明也曾经强调理解原文很重要，但是终归理解能力并不是考试的重点。所以比较好的做法是：分析题目的脉络，写出分析性的概括。这里没有必要单独再复述题目了因为在分析中已经暗含了原文的信息。这里还有一点值得注意：为什么要在第二句话的最前面用comparison这个词呢，这是有讲究的!原文的论证核心就是比较，而这里将此词提到最前面一是说这是原文的逻辑关联，二是暗示我下面要做的就是围绕着此比较而进行的。有点类似于主题句的主干提前。这个词真的是令人发指的重要，看到后面你就知道了
　　However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. 这一段是质疑一个假设的前提。从前面的几个范文的分析我们可以看出来，正文body首段质疑的都是作者让步的前提，那么这里的让步在哪里呢，开头段并没有提到阿。确实没有在第一段提到让步。但是别着急，在最后一段的第一句，出现了让步(即since后面的两点理由)，这不就又对应上了吗!让步说F这些市民可能是因为自己的利益或者保护自己的安全才建议取消限速的。那么这里的前提就是是F因为限速才使事故增加的。这一段将这个前提狠狠的质疑了一番。论证方法为列举他因。Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford.In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. 列举了三点他因，有两点值得注意：一是这里作者前两点都没有详细展开，但这是不是意味着对于比较常识性的例子不用展开呢，不是!同志们，展开并不只有三段论式展开才是展开，谁说这里没有展开呢?作者实际上已经通过定语同位语进行展开了!!比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相补充阿，所以说我们在给出常识性的例子时，要注意通过修饰语的方式进行暗中的展开。判断我们证明的是否严谨是否充足，可以这样：完全只是用我们提供的信息来推，能不能推出最后的结果。而最后一点展开的则较为充分，这里看来是因为最后一点有点过于宽泛，必须要进行详细具体解释才行。更深一层次的来说作者对于例子的安排也是有详有略，给人错落有致的感觉，美。另外一点值得注意的就是，这三个论证中无一例外的都进行了EF的比较，照应了开头给出的comparison这个词，作者兑现了自己在开头的暗示。 It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. 这里作者的论证向前进了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不够的，我们心里一定要想着提出他因是干什么的。这里指出了他因究竟如何来利用，使得证明原文。即应该多考虑一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。 Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.这和上一句是相照应的，属于对比性的论证，刚才说F有了他因所以不是限速能解决，这里有说了E也许也是他因才使得情况稍好。整个段落是多么整齐的对仗阿!EF两地的对比无处不在，而又那么的工整!作者在开头第二句话的Comparison一词真的是统领全文的阿!正所谓指哪打哪。
　　A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.从这一段开始攻击原文逻辑链。本段有四个分论点，本来应该写四段的。(至于为什么没有写三段，我想是因为awintro中说我们可以随意的选择段落的数量，并不会影响最后的结果。但是，这样的话前提是阅卷人有足够的耐心。所以为了保险起见，让人看着更为清楚些，我还是建议大家分开写)这里第一个攻击的就是6个月时间够不够。It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. 这一句话的目的在于复述原文条件，立起靶子。从这里开始攻击第二点，即天气的影响。 This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. 对E的论证采用的是经典三段论，即天气差==〉人不出去==〉事故少。However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. 再次进行了EF对比，通过coerced后面的从句进行推演，属于小展开。也足够充分。 Again, the demographics of the population are important. 这里对逻辑链的第三点进行了攻击。即人口数量的问题。 It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 先说E的人可能少。论证方法是加条件后讨论。 Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago?If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 再说F的人可能多。论证方法同要是加条件后讨论。 Also in reference to the activities of the population, 最后攻击逻辑链的第四点，即人们活动的时间。(品味一下本段四个逻辑错误的安排顺序，时间==)天气==)人数==〉人的活动，看似无关，还是很有讲究的阿，这不正是从外在因素到内在因素吗)it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.第四点的论证同样是采用了两者的对比。看来作者真是说到做到阿，竟然没有一次论证没有对比的!!论证方法为加条件后讨论。
　　Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. 原来让步在这呢!其实作者心里一直有数，只是没写出来。但是在正文body的第一段已经就其假设进行了讨论。我想我们不是作者这样的牛人，这样的让步还是很有必要在第一段体现出来的。 However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.最后提出了建议。我们看到作者对于文章的立意把握得很好，要是换我们来写，可能会写限速怎么不好啊。而这文章中限速不管怎么说总是有好的一面，只是常识!所以作者的立意为：不是说限速不好，而是说要考虑全。引申一下，我们一定要对文章的立意有个把握。文章无非就三种立意，一种是好的(就像这样的为了安全的(比如skate范文))，一种就是不好不坏的(就像为了利益的为了利润(什么挣钱多啊))，一种是不好的(就像有个说不应该取消安全带规定，还有诋毁某人的)。这三种立意的写法可是完全不同的阿!对于第一种，切记要委婉!最好就是避而不谈，而说应该考虑更全面。对于后面两种，嘿嘿，就得狠点了，尤其是最后一种，就是谴责。后面的文章我会给出分析。
　　COMMENTARY
　　This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical."
　　It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis.
　　Alternatives mentioned are that
　　-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
　　-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents;
　　-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
　　-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
　　-- population and auto density should be considered; and
　　-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
　　The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.
　　Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.
　　For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.
　　The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.
　　This is an impressive 6 paper.
      第五篇文章
　　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."
　　原文逻辑顺序：五年前投票决定某地保持原生态==〉原生态可用来做公园让大家受益==〉现在有人建议盖学校==〉盖学校就要改此地为操场==〉建操场是唯一能此地还保持原生态的方案(暗含假设为操场就是原生态)
　　This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state.The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland.The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there.This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.这里是复述题目的前半部分，即五年前人们的看法以及理由。基本上没有加入任何分析。
　　The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.这里复述题目的后半部分，即现在要盖学校，作者认为盖学校会有什么效果，以及盖学校是唯一的办法。同志们，第一第二段都是单纯的复述题目，只是稍加了一点层次感，但是几乎没有加上任何分析，以及态度。这实际上是这篇范文的败笔之处。后面的官方评语就是这样说的，说开头段太犹豫了(评语第一段)，并说可以做得更好的(评语最后一段)。所以说这篇文章的开头是考官所不喜欢的，但是为什么也能得满分呢，因为他后面的论证确实很充分，另外也是因为本题本身也真的很难读懂，写到这份上已经不容易了。Awintro里面说了，最后的成绩是看整个文章的整体效果，那么这篇文章虽然有缺点，但还有更大的优点，所以总体是很好的，所以得了满分。从六篇范文的评语里也可以看出来，在这6个满分文章中，有些文章是次满分的，有些文章是满分的，而有些文章是超满分的。我们要做的就是找出每篇文章的优点和缺点，最后汇集优点避免缺点写出一个到处全是优点的文章，那不就是超超超满分了。当然了，这是扯淡，不可能到处都是优点，只能尽量吧。言归正传，这文章的开头应该改进成在简短一点复述题目，至少并成一段，然后加上自己的观点，到底哪里值得后面讨论。
　　This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. 这里开始分析了，先说是片面的。论证手法为加条件后讨论。The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. 这里先加上不同的条件，讨论不同的后果，很好的手法阿!你可能会问，他哪里讨论了?没发展讨论哪!其实，当假定作者为教师时，已经在教师的后面的定语从句中给出了充分的演绎，这就是小发展，这就是awintro里强调无数次的cogently，发展于无形之间，我们在写作文的时候也要学会噢。Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.这一句话很重要，把前面的假设的变量给排除了，为后面的论证扫清了障碍。
　　Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. 这里指出的是文章的核心的最大的错误，即学校操场不等于原生态。这种论证顺序和其他的不同，没有让步，也没有质疑假设。总体的论证顺序为先讨论一个大的问题，然后再讨论与此大问题相关联的一些小问题。同志们可能要问了这是什么套路阿?其实awintro也推荐过这样的套路,”考试大论坛
　　The readers know that a writer can earn a high score by analyzing and developing several points in a critique or by identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that critique extensively.”以上摘自awintro中的一段。 While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. 这里是分支观点，把原命题给拆分成两个部分以供下面讨论。 The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.What interest do they have in a new school?It only means higher taxes for them to pay.
　　They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.先说学校操场怎么样(有人不受益)。On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. 再说原生态公园怎么样。(每人受益) The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. 基于以上两点，这句话得出了结论：建学校操场会不如原生态公园好。这个论证还是三段论! In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.上一句结论的正话反说。本句话很关键!为后一段埋下伏笔。属于逻辑过渡句。
　　Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.本段是上一段的延续，还是围绕着中心问题进行讨论。我们注意到上一段说学校不能使每一个人受益，只能使其中一部分适龄年轻人收益，这一段就问了：这些适龄年轻人真的受益了吗?所以说是上一段的一个深究，论证的很深入。本段论证方法为列举反例。What about children who don't play sports?Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.A playing field is a playing field.Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.
　　This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.这里的论证一下去，原文彻底傻了，原来就算是学生也不能够就一定受益阿!这种论证方式，属于递进式攻击。其内涵的逻辑联系之紧密，让人不由得赞叹!牛!这两段是文章最出彩的地方，也是文章在开头不好的情况下能力挽狂澜得到满分的秘密武器。"
　　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.

普渡哥

谢谢中人！！