GRE寫作官方題庫高頻ARGUMENT題目滿分范文分享：Ballmer Island Gazette

　　The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Ballmer Island Gazette:

　　“On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island’s moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville’s town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals.”

　　Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

　　【滿分范文賞析】

　　The author of this editorial recommends that, to reduce accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, Balmer Island’s city council should restrict moped rentals from 50 to 25 per day, at each of the island’s six rental outlets. To support this recommendation the author cites the fact that last year, when nearby Seaville Island’s town council enforced similar measures, Seaville’s rate of moped accidents decreased by 50%. There are several reasons why this evidence fails to substantiate the claim.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument開頭段結構，即C—E—F的開頭結構。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下來概括原文為支持其結論所引用的Evidence，最后給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即其Evidence不能證實其結論。

　　【本段功能】

　　本段作為Argument開頭段，具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結論，即：為減少涉及摩托自行車與行人的事故的發(fā)生，Balmer島市議會應在該島六個租車點將摩托自行車的日租借量限制由50輛下調(diào)至25輛。本段接下來列舉了原文為支持其結論所引用的證據(jù)——在去年，當附近的Seaville島的鎮(zhèn)議會實行了類似的措施后，其摩托自行車事故率降低了50%。這些信息的歸納為正文段中即將進行的具體攻擊作鋪墊。

　　To begin with, the author assumes that all other conditions in Balmer that might affect the rate of moped-pedestrian accidents will remain unchanged after the restrictions are enacted. People often find ways to circumvent restrictions. For example, with a restricted supply of rental mopeds, people in Balmer who currently rent in the summer might purchase mopeds instead. Also, the number of pedestrians might increase in the future.With more pedestrians, especially tourists, the risk of moped-pedestrian accidents would probably increase. For that matter, the number of rental outlets might increase to make up for the artificial supply restriction per outlet, a likely scenario in consideration of the fact that moped rental demand will not likely decrease.Without considering and ruling out these and other possible changes that might contribute to a high incidence of moped-pedestrian accidents, the author cannot convince me that the proposed restrictions will necessarily have the desired effect.

　　【本段結構】

　　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其在原文中出現(xiàn)的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【本段功能】

　　本段作為正文第一段，攻擊原文中出現(xiàn)的第一個重要邏輯錯誤——忽略他因。原文作者假設在制定限制措施后，Balmer島上所有其它可能影響摩托自行車事故率的條件將保持不變。然而，人們經(jīng)常會發(fā)現(xiàn)避開限制的方法。例如，當摩托自行車的租借量受限制時，目前在夏季租用摩托自行車的Balmer島人們可能會改為購買摩托自行車。另外，行人的數(shù)目在未來可能會增加。行人(尤其是游客)數(shù)目的增加可能會導致摩托自行車和行人之間發(fā)生事故的增多。鑒于對摩托自行車出租的需求量不太可能會下降，摩托自行車租借點的數(shù)目很可能會增加，以彌補每個租車點的租借量所受到的人為限制。本段最后指出：作者在沒有考慮和排除這些可能會提高摩托自行車和行人紙質(zhì)件事故的發(fā)生率的其它改變之前，是不能說服讀者其所提出的措施一定會獲得期望的效果的。

　　To further explore the link between the two locations and a reduction in number of accidents, the author relies on what could be an unfair comparison. Perhaps Balmer’s ability to enforce moped-rental restrictions does not meet Seaville’s ability.In that case, the mere enactment of similar restrictions in Balmer is no guarantee of a similar result. Or perhaps the demand for mopeds in Seaville is always greater than in Balmer. Specifically, if fewer than all available mopeds are currently rented per day from the average Balmer outlet, while in Seaville everyavailable moped is rented each day, then the proposed restriction is likely to have less impact on the accident rate in Balmer than in Seaville.

　　【本段結構】

　　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其在原文中出現(xiàn)的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【本段功能】

　　本段作為正文第三段，攻擊原文中出現(xiàn)的第三個重要邏輯錯誤——錯誤類比?；蛟SBalmer島在加強摩托自行車租借限制時的執(zhí)行力不及Seaville島的執(zhí)行力。在這種情形下，僅僅在Balmer島上制定與Seaville島相似的限制并不能保證獲得相似的效果。抑或是Seaville島對摩托自行車的需求量始終比Balmer島上的大。特別地，如果通常的Balmer島租借點每天租出的摩托自行車數(shù)量比其可供租借的摩托自行車總量少，而Seaville島租借點的每輛摩托自行車每天均被租出，那么被提議的限制對Balmer島事故率的影響很可能會小于其對Seaville島的影響。

　　Finally, the author provides no evidence that the same restrictions that served to reduce the incidence of all “moped accidents” by 50% would also serve to reduce the incidence of “accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians” by 50%. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the number of moped accidents not involving pedestrians decreased by a greater percentage, while the number of moped-pedestrian accidents decreased by a smaller percentage, or even increased. Since the author has not accounted for these possibilities, the recommendation requires further substantiation.

　　【本段結構】

　　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其在原文中出現(xiàn)的位置，接下來給出合理的理由和他因來反駁原文。

　　【本段功能】

　　本段作為正文第四段，攻擊原文中出現(xiàn)的第四個重要邏輯錯誤——錯誤假設。作者沒有提供證據(jù)證明使得“摩托自行車事故”的發(fā)生減少50%的那些限制同樣也將使得“涉及摩托自行車和行人的事故”的發(fā)生減少50%。如果缺乏如此證據(jù)，完全可能是摩托自行車事故的數(shù)目降低了更大的百分比，而摩托自行車和行人之間的事故降低了較小的百分比，甚至可能上升了。本段最后指出：既然作者沒有對這些可能性進行說明，其建議需要被進一步證實。