ARGUMENT結構性指導

ARGUMENT的結構性比較固定，易于掌握，用過新東方書的考生出手都能寫出個標準的“經典5段（4段）式”，可以說這種模式是完全可以采用，同時也是最好的、最有效的。相比較其余什么“老管寫作模式”，“思馬得模版作文”，這種模式是上乘的首選，而且條理清晰，可讀性好，容易方便閱卷人給分。從網上海量作文習作看來，幾乎所有考生都對ARGUMENT的這種寫作模式相當熟悉，因此僅對其中出現的普遍問題強調和糾正一下：

（1）開頭和結尾：由于ARGUMENT時間的緊迫性，開頭和結尾應該盡量簡短而明確，其篇幅總量應不超過正文部分的1/3。很多考生一上來就花了5、6分鐘把題干中的論據結論用復雜的長句子轉述，在象征性地于結尾來一句諸如“經過我反復檢查，其中論據模糊、邏輯錯誤橫生”之類的套話。然后在正文又要分條攻擊闡述。這是極不科學的“湊字數”的模式，相信老外閱卷人一天看個百來篇的這類文章，很容易產生“惡意”和“過敏”，一怒之下有種判為“類同卷”的沖動。正確的做法永遠只有，用1-2句話明明白白告訴閱卷人基本的結論和你的態度，做到簡短而有力，讓閱卷人一眼就看到你的觀點，并且知道你已經讀懂題目并且作了基本的準確回應。羅列證據是留給正文的事。另外對于結尾，不要總是告誡出題者要如何如何加強自己的論證，我們往往可以反其道而行，用上點“諷刺”、“黑色幽默”等手法讓枯燥的文章在末尾展示出良好的可讀性，博得閱卷人的“好感”。

（2）正文：盡管這是邏輯作文，題干給的像以前的邏輯單選題，但是它是一種作文，不是客觀題。大量的使用刻板的邏輯句式對于文章的生動性“百害而無一利”。很多考生背會了什么“孫氏邏輯句法”就在正文處大打出手，用些看上去極能唬人的分析句式，像邏輯專業出身的人那樣，左一句“the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy”,右一句“the arguer rests his conclusion on the classic logic fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc”.連拉丁文都用上了，你說老美作何感想。按中國人的話說，叫“掉書袋”，當諸位考生還在自我為這種呆板的句式樂此不疲的時候，你是否留意過GRE作文在你的手下是不是有些散發出像死尸一樣的蒼白來。作文者，就是要以“能說明問題”為先，而不是在這里“裝神弄鬼”，盡管邏輯方面的論證我們需要邏輯知識的支撐，但是我們要作好的只是“借題發揮”、“點到即止”。正確的做法應該是掌握住“錯誤”，揪住對方的小辮，然后適當搭配著證據的羅列稱述，合理選用邏輯句式，一說明問題立刻回來，盡量用例證不要去做邏輯上的因果論證。具體請參看對比以下范文：

4. The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site. "Of the two leading real estate firms in our town — Adams Realty and Fitch Realty — Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."

（病歷文）

In this argument, the arguer recommends us to use Adams, one of the two leading real estate firms in our town, to sell our homes if you want to, instead of Fitch, the other leading one. To justify his conclusion, the arguer provides the clear evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast to the number 25 of Fitch, even many of which are only part-time. In addition, he cited the fresh statistics of revenues of both Adams and Fitch, which respectively are $168,000 and $144,000. To make it more conceivable, the arguer even lists out a self-experienced case to exhibit the superior sell speed of Adams to Fitch. Although all the evidences above seem reasonable, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes Adams' service is better than Fitch's with the assumption that more agents, more satisfaction. The 40 agents in Adams might be poorly trained and unqualified with an extremely low work efficiency, thus enlarging the number of the agents is the only feasible compensation. While Fitch's 25 agents may be well trained and be rich in experience, although many of them work only part-time, which under the present work condition is enough. And also the quality of the service can't be oversimplified to only a factor of the number of employees, which, in our common sense, has no necessary correlation. It is some other things that should be taken into consideration, such as social reputation, the feedbacks of customers and the company's culture and spiritual, to avoid making the assertion too unwarranted.

In the second place, the statistics offered by the arguer can't elucidate anything. It seems true that Adams' achievement is greater than Fitch's through the comparison of revenues, but the data itself is too vague to be informative. Taking into account the service charge, which can't be omitted in this case, we absolutely have adequate reasons to doubt the charge from Adams is far larger than Fitch, which eventually leads to such a gap. Another possibility of the result is contributing to the types of house they are entrusted to sell, since no evidence showed that Adams can afford to sell the lower-price estates while Fitch can assume the opposite ones, thus the phenomenon arises.

Last but not least, in short of legitimacy is that Fitch really sells homes slower than Adams does. According to the arguer's narrative, he entrusted his home to Fitch ten years ago when the balance of offer-request heavily outweighed the left side and Fitch selling it in more than four months is nothing but a miracle. Adams, instead, sold his another home in one month last year during which the request for house might be booming as a result of influx of the foreign immigrants. Under this circumstance, Adams' success, however, is merely ordinary. Besides, the two houses sold out no doubt have natural differences, which tightly related to the smooth process of selling, such as location, structure, areas, and materials. The arguer thus makes so hasty a generalization regardless of these crucial points.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned in lack of some indispensable evidence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would demonstrate that the superior quality of Adams' agents and the relatively lower charge comparable to Fitch's. Additionally, more details should be evinced, concerning the actual estate situation in those periods of time and fundamental instructions of the two sold houses, to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities.  

點評：該范文充斥著上面討論的各種毛病，僅開頭就131字，加上結尾超過200字，已經遠遠超過正文1/3篇幅，是不可取的。許多模式句型充斥，結尾老套，不值得學習借鑒。另外很多考生關心這樣一來字數就不合“要求”。ETS從來沒有對作文字數有要求，盡管網上流行說法認為閱卷者將字數列為打分項目之一，但是在ETS公布的評分標準中是覓不著蹤跡的，況且ETS極講究科學性，不會以貌取人，但求“以理服人”，這從他考試的設計可以看出來。所以正常的ARGUMENT作文可以在“350—500”字之間，而ISSUE可在“450—600”之間，這是按正常打字速度與思維速度指定的標準。很多網上作文包括我這里的某些范文都有遠遠超過500、600字的，很少是在真正全封閉作業下，45分鐘或30分鐘內完成的。在考試時間內，按上述標準的字數作文拿“滿分”是綽綽有余的，事實說明一切，我的諸多戰友，包括前面提及的Violet，從來都是靠“5步一殺”、“3步一槍”，(500字左右ISSUE，300字左右ARGUMENT)，在4、6級詞匯范圍內穩拿5分—6分，可見一斑。不相信的考生應該自己在PP2、PP3的作文模考中親身體驗，我會在最后推薦大家一個行之有效的快速練習作文速度和質量的“槍手作文速成訓練法”，我們這一輩稱為“替身殺手”的人都是這樣練出來的。

（來源：網絡）