They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.先说学校操场怎么样。On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. 再说原生态公园怎么样。 The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. 基于以上两点,这句话得出了结论:建学校操场会不如原生态公园好。这个论证还是三段论! In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.上一句结论的正话反说。本句话很关键!为后一段埋下伏笔。属于逻辑过渡句。
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.本段是上一段的延续,还是围绕着中心问题进行讨论。我们注意到上一段说学校不能使每一个人受益,只能使其中一部分适龄年轻人收益,这一段就问了:这些适龄年轻人真的受益了吗?所以说是上一段的一个深究,论证的很深入。本段论证方法为列举反例。What about children who dont play sports?Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.A playing field is a playing field.Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.
【GRE写作argument全部官方范文分析(7)】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01