This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.这里的论证一下去,原文彻底傻了,原来就算是学生也不能够就一定受益阿!这种论证方式,属于递进式攻击。其内涵的逻辑联系之紧密,让人不由得赞叹!牛!这两段是文章最出彩的地方,也是文章在开头不好的情况下能力挽狂澜得到满分的秘密武器。
The authors conclusion that there would be no better use of land in our community than this...is easily arguable. 最后文章再质疑了结论的可靠性。 The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. 先说建学校这事压根就不靠谱。为什么呢?
后面给出了解释。 If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision.The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. 这里通过和购物中心比,得出了结论说当初的投票就是为了大家。这个论证也是全文的亮点,因为他是用原文的条件来攻击原文,它认为购物中心的收入已经是相当高了,但即使这么高的收入也没有原生态公园给每个人带来的收益高,更何况是收益还不如购物中心的学校呢。这里更深层次的隐含意思是:购物中心是所有投资中利润最高的,这都不行,所以任何的改动都是不行的。就必须要保持原生态公园。这里作者的思想多么的锐利。一下子就揪住了原文的一项自我矛盾的地方。The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.最终提出了作者的建议。
【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