麻烦各位NN看一下 8月1号就考了...

brendanch

AA028

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company's projections.However,commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations."

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the transit company should either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations to increase the amount of commuters who ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that commuter use of the shuttle buses is under the original expectation, meanwhile the number of people who use the new subway train is exceeding the company's projected volume. At first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffer from at least three logic flaws.

 

First, the author makes that conclusion based on the follow assumption: the transit company's projections are absolutely accurate otherwise the recommendation is meaningless since the number of riding bus and driving may be almost equal. But apparently the author can't ensure this. Since even the projection is accurate, it was only accurate when it was made. The author should first reestimate the number then make recommendations. Thus this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility,

 

Second, the author reaches to this conclusion rely on the claim that commuters go to the subway stations only by bus or car. However, this is not necessarily the case. People can choose many other vehicles such as bicycle taxi or even on foot. Furthermore, we can imagine that some people have different choices under different conditions. Like in a sunny day, they may ride bicycles instead of driving. Unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out, this reasoning is fallacious.

 

Last but not least. Most of the people who drive to the subway station will not change their choice just because the shuttle bus fee decreases since cars somewhat show their status. And for those who live far from the subway stations taking bus takes so much time that will have them late. So, for those people, no matter how fares change, they won't take bus forever. 

 

In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion that the author would have to provide evidence that the traffic cost is the only point influencing people's decision whether ride the shuttle bus to the subway station otherwise I do not believe the advice will be effective.

brendanch

为什么没有人帮我看呢.......

罗马青年

写了这么多，500多了吧？

今天太晚了，准备呼噜了，明天一定来欣赏并提建议！

罗马青年

不是NN，就是喜欢欣赏别人写的文章，呵呵！以下都是我乱评的，错了别怪我！呵呵！

First, the author makes that conclusion based on the follow assumption:

应该是following

The author should first reestimate the number then make recommendations.

这段开头用了first，这里应该是副词：firstly。另：是否换个词比较好，如：primarily，免得都是类似的词；then make  是否改成：before making 比较好？你想表达的就是：先做什么，然后做什么。。。；改成：做什么前。。。你先要做什么。。。，可能更有强调先后顺序的意思。

the author makes that conclusion based on the follow assumption: the transit company's projections are absolutely accurate otherwise the recommendation is meaningless since the number of riding bus and driving may be almost equal.

这句话真长，我读的喘不过气，是否修改下？模仿OG中SC的例句，改成 ”1个从句在前，主句在后，再带个同位语修饰主语“会好些（现在很晚了，我脑子也不清醒了，不敢乱改，但觉得这样比较像原装的句子，呵呵）。免得这么长连在一起读起来很累。 或使用虚拟语气：the recommendation would be meaningless if the the transit company's projections are not absolutely accurate。。整句请NN再改下，觉得不太好。

the number of riding bus and driving may be almost equal. 犯了SC中比较时乱省略的错误，应该是 and that of driving，否则number成了riding + driving 两者相加的人数了！

almost 应该用nearly，才是你的本意吧？词典上说：nearly,almost虽然都可以表示“几乎”，但是当要表示“接近”或“就要到了”时最好用nearly；当想表达“不足”或“尚差一点儿”时最好用almost。almost 是肯定的词语但表达的是略带否定的意思。

Second, the author reaches to this conclusion rely on the claim that

词组搭配应该是reach a conclusion，后面没有to；

这句话从SC角度看，在1句话中，1个主语连续带了2个谓语 reaches, rely.

是否应该改成：the author reaches this conclusion by relying on the claim that ....或者

In addition, relying on the claim that ...., the author reaches this conclusion that....（或：In addition, relying on the claim that ...., the author concludes that....）

先写这么多，都凌晨4：25了，我还是先睡，清醒了再改，免得误人子弟！

如有不当，也告诉我，共同进步。看别人写的作文，自己也会进步，这些错误我也常犯。好好复习吧。GMAT作文评分是比较松的，你写了这么多字，主题、框架都还好，应该5分+是没问题了。这几天就注意别让小错误成了习惯，考试时注意留2分钟修改细节：拼写、标点。记得考试时：每段之间空一行。（但也别空成今天这个都好几行了，CD系统显示的问题吧，呵呵！）

罗马青年

另：考作文时，别乱点NEXT，否则很有可能第1篇作文你没写就跳到下一篇。

北京的监考老师考前会提醒，不知道外地的会不会。

作文题目在屏幕上方，直接就在下方空白处写；有人以为题目在一页，写在下一页，就点了NEXT！千万注意别犯这个低级错误！

brendanch

谢啦

最近在练速度,这篇是40分钟才写完的,30分钟之内的文章只有330左右,急死了

罗马青年

想得高分，最好写上400字