《新GRE写作官方范文分析1-智课教育旗下智课教育》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《新GRE写作官方范文分析1-智课教育旗下智课教育（8页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、智 课 网 G R E 备 考 资 料新GRE写作官方范文分析1-智课教育旗下智课教育新GRE作文发生了很大的变化，那么针对某些作文，到底怎样来写 呢？下面是智课教育考试规划师为广大GRE考生整理的GRE作文官方范 文分析，希望能给GRE广大考生在写作的时候带来一些灵感！ 新GRE写作官方范文是出题机构根据考生的需求来整理的，此文发 表在这里是希望给广大GRE考生在写作的时候，一些参考，从而提高写 作速度和思路。 Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accid
2、ents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.)
3、. Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.原题逻辑顺序为：数据显示了对保护装备的需求=展开说明这 个数据是怎样显示这样的需求的(即用这个装备有什么效果)=结论： 为了达到这个效果我们应该重金买这保护设备。 Benchmark 6 The not
4、ion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur.
5、 前两句首先肯定 了原命题中值得肯定的地方。这是求同存异的表现。注意这里第一句作 者同意原命题的同时，在第二句紧接着就给出了展开的证明。而没有光 是罗列观点。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially moresignificant) causes of injuries and may inspire
6、people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再说原命 题是存在逻辑漏洞的，即它因。这里并没有展开论证，因为这是全文的 中心句，整个文章都在后面给予论证。同时，最后半句给出了论据中的 潜在后果。 First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective
7、 gear (such as helmets). body打头第一段 是属于攻击总前提假设的，作者认为这个(即保护性设备和防护性设备的 差别)是有必要在讨论一切之前弄清楚的。论证方法为质疑假设，加条件 后讨论，提出建议。实际上，这个前提对应的就是开头段的前两句话。 深层的含义就是，尽管我在开头对你的某一个部分作了让步似的同意， 但是这个同意也是建立在一定的假设基础上的，要是这个假设搞不清楚 ，哼哼我让不让步还不一定呢!本段就来讨论这个假设基础。Preventati ve gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part
8、motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the “other“ is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some fo
9、rce of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 这两句分别从两个 方面进行了论述，为本段第一句话的论证进行服务，每一方面的具体方 法是先定义，再比较。论证方法为加上不同的条件后进行讨论，比如前 一句话假定只有防护性装备会怎样，后一句话假定只有保护性装备会怎 么样。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters w
10、ould be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 这里提出了作者的 建议，即如何通过进一步的完善使原命题更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds
11、 of gear are more beneficial. 如果这个问题(保护防护设备的差别)解决了后面的讨论才能继续。所以说，总的来说这一段是讨论了原文 一个核心的前提。 The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not.从本段起， 连着的三个自然段就是按照原文逻辑链的顺序进行攻击和质疑。实际上 ，这三段对应的就是开头段的however之
12、后的话。本段先质疑了人的本 质的差异。论证方法是加条件后讨论。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and r
13、esponsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.以上三句话展开证明第一个分支观点，论证方法就是大名鼎鼎的三 段论。加入常识性条件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保护装置=配 戴装置后就能少出事故=故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。 Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous p
14、laces to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上两句展开证 明第二个分支观点，论证方法同样为大名鼎鼎的三段论，加上常识性条 件。即街道公园本身不太安全=本身注意安全的人会选择安全的地 方=来这里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。这里最后一点是我给补 充上的，原文没有论证完全，
15、但是基本的框架还是有的。 The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of i njuries.攻击逻辑链的第二步，受伤的程度没有说清。这里的论证方法 核心是质疑隐含假设，加条件后讨论。 The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隐含假设。This is c
16、ertainly not the case.指出它错了。 Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarilyengaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人们晚上去滑的人多这个条件后讨论，最终削弱原命题。 Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻击逻辑联的第三步，质量好的 不一定有用。核心论证
