GRE作文雖然有官方題庫，但題目總數(shù)太多讓考生難以做到全部練一遍，因此看完題目直接看對應的高分范文學習寫法思路就成為了更有效率的做法。下面小編就來為大家提供ARGUMENT題庫高頻作文題目的滿分范文賞析。

GRE作文官方題庫ARGUMENT題目：

The following appeared in a newspaper feature story:

"There is now evidence that the relaxed manner of living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large Mason City. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Mason City the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. And the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Mason City residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities."

滿分范文賞析

This newspaper story concludes that living in a small town promotes health and longevity. The speaker bases the conclusion on a comparison between the small town of Leeville and nearby Mason City, a larger town. While the argument appears valid enough at first glance, a closer look reveals a few distinct weaknesses.

【此段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument開頭段結構，即：C – E - F的開頭結構，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下來的一句話概括了原文為了支持他的結論所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文在邏輯上存在F(Flaw)。

【此段功能】

本段作為Argument開頭段，具體功能就在發(fā)起攻擊。首先，概括原文的結論：住在小城鎮(zhèn)會提高健康水平和壽命。接下來分別列舉了原文為了支持這個結論引用的證據(jù)：對小城鎮(zhèn)Leeville和大城市Mason City的對比，論據(jù)的歸納用于鋪墊出正文段的具體攻擊。最后點出原文存在邏輯錯誤，引出后面的分析。

One initial problem with the argument is that the author draws conclusion about the effect of a town's size on the health and longevity of its residents but doesn’t really present any evidence. There are a lot of indications that the residents of one town are healthier but the speaker doesn’t indicate why. More specifically, the only evidence presented here is the pace of life. This does very little to establish requisite links.

【此段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第一個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和原文犯錯位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【此段功能】

本段作為正文第一段，攻擊文章犯的主要邏輯錯誤：因果類錯誤(無原因)。作者認為原文只提出了“小城鎮(zhèn)居民比大城市居民健康長壽”這一現(xiàn)象，但是沒有indicate why。這樣法人為城鎮(zhèn)大小對健康狀況和壽命產(chǎn)生因果關系。

Next, the author cites the fact that the incidence of sick leave in Leeville is less than in Mason City. This evidence would lend support to the argument only if the portion of local residents employed by local businesses were nearly the same in both towns, and only if the portion of employees who are local residents were nearly the same in both towns. Of course, in a more densely populated area with more people, the incidence of something like sick leave would be higher. Without offering a per-capita rate, one cannot come to the conclusion that the rate is higher or lower in either case.

【此段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第二個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和原文犯錯位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【此段功能】

本段作為正文第二段，攻擊文章犯的主要邏輯錯誤：錯誤類比。對于原文中對兩城市sick leave的比較，作者應當建立在兩城市對本地居民的錄用率相同，已經(jīng)雇員中本地居民的比例相同這兩個前提下。原文缺乏對這些前提的說明，所以不能從sick leave比較中得到結論。

The author also cites the fact that Mason City has five times as many physicians. However, any number of factors besides the health of the towns' residents might explain this disparity. For example, perhaps people in the city are concerned with cosmetic issues rather than health matters. Without ruling out such explanations, these physician-resident ratios prove nothing about the comparative health of Leeville and Mason City residents.

【此段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第三個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和原文犯錯位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【此段功能】

本段作為正文第三段，攻擊文章犯的主要邏輯錯誤：錯誤因果(忽略他因)。作者認為Mason City physician數(shù)量是Leeville的五倍可能是其他原因造成的，例如concerned with cosmetic issues rather than health matters(關注化妝品勝于關注健康)。吐過在沒有排除他因干擾，physician數(shù)量說明不了什么。

Finally, the author cites the fact that the average age of Leeville residents is higher than that of Mason City residents. However, any number of factors might explain this disparity. For example, perhaps Leeville is a retirement community, while Mason City attracts younger working people. For that matter, perhaps Leeville is comprised mainly of former Mason City residents whose longevity is attributable chiefly to their former life-style in Mason City. In any event, the author cannot justify the conclusion that this disparity in average age has anything to do with the healthy benefits or lack thereof in either city.

【此段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即：概括第四個邏輯錯誤的錯誤類型和原文犯錯位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

【此段功能】

本段作為正文第四段，攻擊文章犯的主要邏輯錯誤：錯誤類比。作者認為“Leeville”居民平均壽命比Mason City居民長”之一現(xiàn)象，可能是由其他因素造成的。作者給出了這樣一個假設：Leeville是retirement community， 而Mason City attracts younger working people(吸引年年輕的工人)。也許Leeville的居民好多都是來自Mason City的，那么

In conlusion, the argument that small-town living promotes good health and longevity based on the examples above is not very persuasive. However, it seems like a sensible one that one should consider trying to strengthen. The argument could be improved if the author provided clearer connections between his examples of health and of the causes of such healthy examples. More specifically, if he could prove that there was a very specific attribute in one place or the other that effected health, the argument would be far more convincing.

【此段結構】

本段采用了標準的Argument結尾段結構，即：C – S的結尾結構，首先再次重申原文的站不住腳的Conclusion，接下來給出給合理建議Suggestion。

【此段功能】

本段作為Argument結尾段，具體功能就總結歸納+建議措施，首先再次重申：原文“住在小城鎮(zhèn)會提高健康水平和壽命”這一論斷是沒有說服力的。接下來作者給出幾條建議：作者需要在health example和cause of health example之間建立邏輯聯(lián)系，就是要提出影響居民健康的具體因素。這幾條建議含蓄的隱射前面的錯誤，前后呼應，文章有力結尾，渾然一體。

?