【作文6.0小分队】范文分享，回馈CD，祝大家都杀G顺利

wttlll

人间烟火Sue 发表于 2017-1-9 13:03
可以啊，我建吗？放个二维码会不会被封....我还有点担心

好呀好呀 要不然建一个QQ群 ？？ 十分感谢呀 ~~

人间烟火Sue

wttlll 发表于 2017-1-9 22:43
好呀好呀 要不然建一个QQ群 ？？ 十分感谢呀 ~~

好嘞，我才创建了一个QQ群，我直接放在下面啦，，

人间烟火Sue

创建了一个GMAT的作文互改群，感兴趣的就加入进来吧。。可以共享一些作文素材资料啊什么的

人间烟火Sue

【31】

       Based upon a correlation between increases in movie violence and crime rates in

cities,the author argues that to combat crime in cities we must either censor moviesthat

containviolence or prohibit people who are under 21 years of age from viewing them.

Theauthor further argues that because legislators failed to pass a bill callingfor these

alternatives,they are not concerned with the problem of crime in our cities. The author's

reasoning is unconvincing, since it suffers from two critical problems.

       To begin with, the author's solution to the problem rests on the claim that

portrayalsof violence in movies are the cause of crime in the cities. However, the

evidenceoffered is insufficient to support this claim. A mere positive correlation

betweenmovie violence and city crime rates does not necessarily prove a causal

relationship,in addition, all other prospective causes of city crime such as poverty or

unemploymentmust be ruled out. As it stands, the author's solution to the problem is

based upon an oversimplified analysis of the issue.

       Another problem with the argument is that the author's solution assumes that only

personsunder 21 years of age are adversely affected by movie violence. Ultimately,this

meansthat the author is committed to the view that, for the most part, theperpetrators

of crimein cities are juveniles under 21. Lacking evidence to support this view, the

author's solution cannot be taken seriously.

       In conclusion, the best explanation of the failure of the bill calling for theactions

proposedin this argument is that most legislators were capable of recognizing the

simplisticanalysis of the problem upon which these actions are based. Rather than

providinga demonstration of a lack of concern about this issue, the legislators' votes

reveal anunderstanding of the complexities of this problem and an unwillingness to

accept simple solutions.

wttlll

人间烟火Sue 发表于 2017-1-11 15:02
创建了一个GMAT的作文互改群，感兴趣的就加入进来吧。。可以共享一些作文素材资料啊什么的
...

非常感谢群主呀~~

人间烟火Sue

wttlll 发表于 2017-1-11 23:03
非常感谢群主呀~~

不用谢啦，只能坐等大家来加入了~

人间烟火Sue

      The author concludes that the local transit company must either reduce tares for

theshuttle buses that transport people to then- subway stations or increaseparking fees

at thestations. The reasons offered to support this conclusion are that commuter useof

thesubway train is exceeding the transit company's expectations, while commuteruse

of theshuffle buses is below projected volume. This argument is unconvincing because

the author oversimplifies the problem and its solutions in a number of ways.

       To begin with, by concluding that the transit company must either reduce shuttle

fares orincrease parking fees, the author assumes that these are the only available

solutionsto the problem of limited shuttle use. However, it is possible that other  

factors-suchas inconvenient shuttle routing and/or scheduling, safety concerns, or an

increasein carpools—contribute to the problem. If so, adjusting fares or parking fees

would might not solve the problem.

       In addition, the author assumes that reducing shuttle fees and increasing parking

fees aremutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author provides no reason for

imposingan either/or choice. Adjusting both shuttle fares and parking fees might

producebetter results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that parking

fees andshuttle fees are the only possible causes of the problem, then the mosteffective

solutionmight include a complex of policy changes—for example, in shuttle fares,

parkingfees, rerouting, and rescheduling.

       In conclusion, this argument is weak because the author oversimplifies both the

problemand its possible solutions. To strengthen the argument the author must examine

allfactors that might account for the shuttle's unpopularity. Additionally, theauthor

shouldconsider all possible solutions to determine which combination would bring

about the greatest increase in shuttle use.

MMMM25

我感觉我定型了，我写了近20篇了。不论是找网上的打分软件，还是真的参加考试，都是4. 我好伤心，什么时候我才可以是6呀。

人间烟火Sue

MMMM25 发表于 2017-1-15 16:15
我感觉我定型了，我写了近20篇了。不论是找网上的打分软件，还是真的参加考试，都是4. 我好伤心，什么时候 ...

么么，要不要找个人帮你看看你的几篇文章，帮你找找看，是不是有定式

人间烟火Sue

【33】

     This speaker argues that farmers who invested in organic farming equipment

shouldresume synthetic farming because it is financially unwise to continue organic

farming.The speaker cites studies showing that farmers who switched to organic

farminglast year had tower crop yields. Based on these studies, the speaker concludes

that therelatively inexpensive investment in organic farming equipment cannot justify

continuingto farm organically. The speaker also claims that continuing to farm

organicallyis financially unwise because it is motivated by environmental, not

economic,concerns. The argument suffers from three problems.

       One problem with this reasoning involves the vague comparative claim that

farmerswho switched to organic farming fast year had lower crop yields. We are not

informedwhether the survey compared last year's organic crop yields with yields from

previous yearsor with those from synthetic farms. Moreover, the author provides no

evidenceabout how the survey was conducted. Lacking more information about the

survey,we cannot accept the speaker's conclusion.

       Secondly,the speaker assumes that the low crop yields for first-time organic

farmerslast year are representative of crop yields for organic farmers overall.However,

moreexperienced organic farmers might have had much better crop yields last year.

Also, thefirst-time organic farmers might improve their own crop yields in future years.

Moreover,last year's yield may have been unusually low due to poor weather or other

factors,and thus not indicative of future yields.

       Finally,in asserting that organic farming is financially unwise because it is

motivatedby environmental instead of economic concerns, the speaker unfairly assumes

that apractice cannot be both environmentally and economically beneficial. It is

possiblethat, in the long run, practices that help protect the environment will alsoresult

ingreater economic benefits. For instance, organic farming methods may betterprotect

soil fromdepletion of the elements that contribute to healthy crops, providing an

economic benefit in the long run.

       In conclusion, the speaker's argument is poorly supported and is short-sighted. To

betterevaluate the argument, we would need more information about the how the

surveywas conducted, especially about the comparison the survey makes. To strengthen

theargument, the speaker must present evidence that last years' crop yields fromfirst-

timeorganic farmers are representative of yields among organic farms in general.The

authormust also provide evidence that environmentally sound practices cannot be

economically beneficial as well.