This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. 这里开始分析了,先说是片面的。论证手法为加条件后讨论。The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. 这里先加上不同的条件,讨论不同的后果,很好的手法阿!你可能会问,他哪里讨论了?没发展讨论哪!其实,当假定作者为教师时,已经在教师的后面的定语从句中给出了充分的演绎,这就是小发展,这就是awintro里强调无数次的cogently,发展于无形之间,我们在写作文的时候也要学会噢。Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.这一句话很重要,把前面的假设的变量给排除了,为后面的论证扫清了障碍。
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. 这里指出的是文章的核心的最大的错误,即学校操场不等于原生态。这种论证顺序和其他的不同,没有让步,也没有质疑假设。总体的论证顺序为先讨论一个大的问题,然后再讨论与此大问题相关联的一些小问题。同志们可能要问了这是什么套路阿?其实awintro也推荐过这样的套路,考试大论坛
The readers know that a writer can earn a high score by analyzing and developing several points in a critique or by identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that critique extensively.以上摘自awintro中的一段。 While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. 这里是分支观点,把原命题给拆分成两个部分以供下面讨论。 The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.What interest do they have in a new school?It only means higher taxes for them to pay.
【GRE写作argument全部官方范文分析(7)】相关文章:
★ 新GRE作文题库argument:introduction 8种的区别解析
最新
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01