1、GRE（ ANALYTICAL WRITING）模拟试卷 3及答案与解析 一、 Analyze an Issue 1 Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint. Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that i
2、dea. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. 二、 Analyze an Argument 2 In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports(swimming, boating, and fishing)among their favorite recreational activities. The
3、 Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the rivers water and the rivers smell
4、. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational facilities. Write a response in which you exam
5、ine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. GRE（ ANALYTICAL WRITING）模拟试卷 3答案与解析 一、 Analyze an Issue 1 【正确答案】 The claim that the best test of an argument
6、is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint is a compelling one. The reason given for this claim is that only through defending an idea against all possible criticism does the idea gain true and tested merit. Indeed, it is this very reason which forms the basis of academic scholars
7、hip: by debating and discussing opposing ideas in a collective discourse, we are able to home in upon those ideas which are truly of value. The concept that an argument should be based on sound principles that convince even those who are biased against it falls in line with the foundation of our pos
8、t-Enlightenment society of reason. Consider, for example, two disparate political parties with vastly different approaches to governing a country. If, in this tense political climate, a representative from one party raises an argument which she can defend openly in front of a group of her opponents,
9、 the value of the idea becomes clear. Say, perhaps, that a representative proposes a new strategy for increasing employment which falls much more in line with her own partys philosophy than with the other partys. By arguing with representatives from the opposing party, and by addressing each and eve
10、ry counterpoint that they raise to her new employment policy, the potential flaws in her idea are laid utterly bare. Furthermore, the logic and reason of her points must be measured in the balance against the biases and emotions of her listeners. If after such a conversation she is able to convince
11、the opposing party that her proposal holds some merit and might actually be beneficial for the citizens of their country, then its value becomes far more evident than if she were a dictator who had merely administered her vision unchecked. It is apparent from this example that the ideology of convin
12、cing others with opposing viewpoints is pervasive in the way many governments and institutions are structured, such as our own through checks and balances, public discourse, and productive disagreement. The strongest reason for the excerpts validity is found by comparing the claim to its reverse. Im
13、agine a scenario where one is asked to present ones argument, but the group of people to whom one is presenting already espouse those very ideas: “preaching to the choir“ is the ubiquitous idiom we use to describe this phenomenon. In this situation, it becomes irrelevant whether or not a particular
14、argument holds those indicators of merit: logic and reason grounded in evidence. Even the most inflammatory or tenuous arguments would not be exposed for their true hollowness by a group who were unwilling or unable to question the speaker. The “choir“ presents no challenge to the argument, and in d
15、oing so the arguments merit cannot be tested. In fact, it is this lack of challenge which can lead to stagnation both in the governing of nations consider, as mentioned above, dictators who eliminate the possibility of dissent and in academic discourse, where complacency with prevailing ideas can ha
16、lt the creation of new and possibly contradictory findings. For this, we see that being forced to defend an idea against the doubt of others does indeed bring out its true worth; in the opposing situation, whether or not the argument holds intrinsic merit, this merit cannot be tested or discerned in
17、 any way. There is, however, one modification which makes the claim more complete. The claim suggests that the best test for an argument is its ability to convince others, which may lead to the inference that an argument which cannot convince others holds no value. However, this inference is not tru
18、e, and here lies the caveat to the claim. Throughout history there are ideas or arguments that are perhaps too modern, beyond their times, and in these situations those who oppose them refuse to believe an argument that is later on discovered to be entirely true and valid. Imagine, for example, Gali
19、leos attempts to convince his contemporaries that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa. In the scientific climate of his time, others simply couldnt accept Galileos reasoned argument despite his multiple attempts to convince them. In this instance, the value of Galileos argument act
20、ually could not be tested by defending it in front of others. The value only became apparent later on, when other scientists began to repeat and understand the insightful calculations that Galileo had made much earlier. So while convincing the opposition is certainly one mark of a good argument, it
21、is not always the ultimate test. In conclusion, the examples discussed reveal that the worth of an argument can be measured through its ability to withstand dissent and doubt. As long as an argument is not deemed invalid by the mere fact that no others are persuaded by it, it is reasonable to claim
22、that the best way to test an argument is to attempt to convince those who oppose it. 【试题解析】 In addressing the specific task directions, this outstanding response presents a cogent examination of the issue and conveys meaning skillfully. After stating a clear position in agreement with both the claim
23、 and its reason, the writer emphasizes the significance of the latter: “It is this very reason which forms the basis of academic scholarship: by debating and discussing opposing ideas in a collective discourse, we are able to home in upon those ideas which are truly of value.“ Skillfully, the writer
24、 demonstrates the validity of the claim by comparing arguments presented to different audiences. First, a political representative defends a proposal against the arguments of the opposing party. Here, the proposal is fully tested “through checks and balances, public discourse, and productive disagre
25、ement.“ In contrast, the writer considers a similar presentation of ideas to a like-minded group(“preaching to the choir“)and concludes that, in the absence of discourse or dissent, the merit of an idea cannot be determined. Finally, the writer reexamines the claim and finds an exception to it(the r
26、ejection by his contemporaries of Galileos reasoned argument), and modifies the claim as follows: “So while convincing the opposition is certainly one mark of a good argument, it is not always the ultimate test.“ Examples and reasons are both compelling and persuasive, and language and syntax are co
27、nsistently precise and effective, as in the following: “In fact, it is this lack of challenge which can lead to stagnation both in the governing of nations consider, as mentioned above, dictators who eliminate the possibility of dissent and in academic discourse, where complacency with prevailing id
28、eas can halt the creation of new and possibly contradictory findings.“ Because of its superior facility, fluent and precise presentation of ideas, and clear and insightful position, this response clearly earns a score of 6. 二、 Analyze an Argument 2 【正确答案】 While it may be true that the Mason City gov
29、ernment ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this authors argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thu
30、s, not strong enough to lead to increased funding. Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city residents love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sp
31、orts or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river.The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river spo
32、rts. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the authors argument. Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because th
33、e water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the residents lack of river use and the rivers current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous comp
34、laints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river. Building upon the implication
35、that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the rivers water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the rivers water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased w
36、ater quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of s
37、ulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the rivers quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between w
38、ater quality and river usage. A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a citys property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest i
39、n improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this authors argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding. 【试题解析】 This argument cites a survey to support the prediction that the use of the Mason River is sure to increase and thus recommends t
40、hat the city government should devote more money in this years budget to the riverside recreational facilities. In developing your evaluation, you are asked to examine the arguments stated and/or unstated assumptions and discuss what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. A succe
41、ssful response, then, must discuss both the arguments assumptions AND the implications of these assumptions for the argument. A response that does not address these aspects of the task will not receive a score of 4 or higher, regardless of the quality of its other features. Though responses may well
42、 raise other points not mentioned here and need not mention all of these points, some assumptions of the argument, and some ways in which the argument depends on those assumptions, include: The assumption that people who rank water sports “among their favorite recreational activities“ are actually l
43、ikely to participate in them.(It is possible that they just like to watch them.)This assumption underlies the claim that use of the river for water sports is sure to increase after the state cleans up the Mason River and that the city should for that reason devote more money to riverside recreationa
44、l facilities. The assumption that what residents say in surveys can be taken at face value.(It is possible that survey results exaggerate the interest in water sports.)This assumption underlies the claim that use of the river for water sports is sure to increase after the state cleans up the Mason R
45、iver and that the city should for that reason devote more money to riverside recreational facilities. The assumption that Mason City residents would actually want to do water sports in the Mason River.(As recreational activities, it is possible that water sports are regarded as pursuits for vacation
46、s and weekends away from the city.)This assumption underlies the claim that use of the river for water sports is sure to increase after the state cleans up the Mason River and that the city should for that reason devote more money to riverside recreational facilities. The assumption that the park de
47、partment devoting little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities means that these facilities are inadequately maintained. This assumption underlies the claim that the city should devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational facilities. If current facilities
48、 are adequately maintained, then increased funding might not be needed even if recreational use of the river does increase. The assumption that the riverside recreational facilities are facilities designed for people who participate in water sports and not some other recreational pursuit. This assum
49、ption underlies the claim that the city should devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational facilities. The assumption that the dirtiness of the river is the cause of its being little used and that cleaning up the river will be sufficient to increase recreational use of the river.(Residents might have complained about the water quality and smell even if they had no desire to boat, swim, or fish in the river.)This assumption underlies the claim that the states plan to clean up the river will result in increased use of the river for water sports.
