GRE作文argument为批判性论述文，需要对给出的一段论述文字进行分析，找到其逻辑漏洞并加以攻击。下面小编就和大家分享GRE写作ARGUMENT区分主次要逻辑技巧，来欣赏一下吧。
GRE写作ARGUMENT区分主次要逻辑技巧
GRE写作怎样判断主次要逻辑漏洞?
如上文所说，其实很多时候一篇argument题目素材里，存在的逻辑漏洞往往不止一处，对于一些写作驳论文经验丰富的考生来说，有些题目甚至一眼望去就是千疮百孔的。但这并不代表大家随便抓住一点就可以写出很有说服力的文章。学会区分逻辑漏洞的主要和次要，集中精力从主要漏洞入手进行写作才能让文章更有说服力。下面小编通过一个实例为大家分析：
GRE写作ARGUMENT真题实例分析
The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine.
A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of their firms. Of the advertising firms studied those whose executives reported needing no more than 6 hours of sleep per night had higher profit margins and faster growth. These results suggest that if a business wants to prosper, it should hire only people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
作文题目翻译
最近一项研究根据每晚平均睡眠时间对300名男性和女性Mentian广告经理需要的睡眠总量与他们公司的成功之间的关联。被研究的广告公司中，那些报告每晚需要的睡眠不超过6小时的经理有较高的利润率和较快的增长。这些结果表明，如果一个企业想要成功，就应该雇佣那些每晚只需要不超过6小时睡眠时间的人。
写一篇回应文章，探讨上述论据中明示和/或隐含的假设，并解释该论据如何建立在这些假设之上;如果这些假设不合理，会对该论据产生什么影响";
逻辑链整理
如果一个企业想要成功，就应该雇佣那些每晚只需要不超过6小时睡眠时间的人。
写作思路解读
这道题目选自2016年9月18日GRE考试机经，可以看出这道题目其实本身存在许多逻辑漏洞。比如STUDY的结论是否权威，300人的样本数是否足够，还有受访者的男女比例，企业成功能否只靠经理，该现象是否只存在特定行业中等等。逻辑漏洞一大堆，但并不代表着每个都值得大家大写特写一番。
一般来说，比较主要的漏洞往往是从题目本身出发的，比如刚才提到的企业成功能否只靠经理以及广告行业现象是否只是特定行业问题等等。对这些漏洞进行攻击，可以让你的文章更有说服力。而其他诸如针对调查结果合理性权威性的漏洞，只能说是次要漏洞，大家可以在写到最后的时候稍微提一提，但如果把这些次要问题当成主要问题来展开写作，就显得有些小题大做了。
GRE写作高分范文：审查的公正性
GRE作文题目：
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
审查很少能够做到公正。
GRE写作正文：
“Censorship” is a word which seems to be authoritative rather than democratic, which implies the will of the governors rather than the will of general people. Since the occurrence of the censorship, which could be traced back to the Ancient Rome, it has been playing an important part in the domestic affairs while arousing applause and condemnation as well. Here the our government faces a dilemma, is it fair to carry on the censorship at the cost of sacrificing part of democracy, or just open the gate letting flows of ideas and thoughts in, at the risk of losing its own rampart.
Since censorship suggest an act of changing or suppressing speech, writing or any other forms of expression that is condemned as subversive of the common good, it must have a close relationship with the one who applies such supervision, and the word “common good” should be redefined under different conditions. There is time when we were all under a powerful monarchy, and the “common good” is the “monarch good”, then the censorship itself is the instrument of the monarch which solely depended on the will of the monarch; in the Middle Ages, both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches practiced censorship that seemed to be oppressive to any ideas challenging the doctrines of churches and the existence of God; even now, in some authoritative countries, the censorship is used to rule its people by restricting their minds, of course, for the stability of their governing over the people. With these regards, censorship itself is questioned at the rationality of existing, regardless of the practices made by the democratic government, while the justice of the democratic government is quite doubtable.
The matter concerning is not only who practices the censorship but also how it is practiced. Since different men make different comments on the same work of art, for example, it is hard to set up a measure by which we could decide whether one should be prohibited, especially to the work of arts, as its content always labeled as “subversive” and “revolutionary”, two words detested by the governors most. Such cases could be found in Ulysses by J. Joyce and Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H Lawrence, these two great novels were firstly considered to be guilty of obscenity and were put to prohibition by the American government, but turned out to be true masterpieces today. So any form of censorship, to some extent, lags behind the development of ideas and will put more or less a negative effect on their development.
Though the censorship is such a disgusting word embodying so much oppression and might, it is a compromise we made with the reality far from being perfect, to provide a comparative stable ground which we could stand on. At this point, I don’t agree with the institute like ACLU who oppose any censorship. The censorship, though rarely justified, should exist as long as a more ideal and practical form is found to replace it, or we could only expect our God to create a more ideal species instead of imperfect human beings.
GRE写作高分范文：information
GRE写作题目：
Much of the information that people assume is factualactually turns out to be inaccurate. Thus，any piece of information referred to as a‘fact’should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future.
大多数人们认为是事实的信息结果实际上都是不准确的。因此，任何据称是事实的信息都应该被质疑，因为它在将来很可能会被证明为是错误的。
GRE写作范文：
Should we be doubtful to all the information at hands because the rightness of which is uncertain? The speaker claims so，I concede that people often commit various fallacies in the course of cognizing things，however I fundamentally take exception of the arguer's assertion to mistrust every fact we might encounter. And I will substantially discuss my views thereinafter.
To begin with，the speaker seems to implicate that a fact would be proven false in the future under numerous circumstance. Nevertheless I prefer to arguer that facts never change. No matter how did the Medieval Church and Inquisition persecute Bruno，the fact never changes that the earth is far from being the center of the universe as the religious sovereigns had assumed or hoped for，while just a minor particle in it. Equally，no matter how Edison had tried to incite the public fear and distrust to the alternative current electricity，the fact never changes that Teals’ electrical system is vastly superior to his direct current electrical one，and would be accepted and applied in larger range.
However，what do change are the human's objective interpretations to facts. One compelling argument to this point is that，due to the limitation of human’s knowledge and comprehensive capability，they tend to make insufficient or even false understanding to the certain fact. An apt illustration is the changes of cognition to disease. While at the ancient time，our progenitors believed the a man becoming a patient for the reason that he had conduct crimes or offended some ghosts or spirits，the contemporary people have well know that the varies of pathogens are the basic causes to our diseases，and the defects of our immune system and so forth are also the factors as well. Another argument for the change of comprehension to fact is that different people always observe and interpret from different perspectives. Though the Relativity theory is not well compliable with the Quantum mechanism，no one call the greatness of both Einstein and Bohr，because their theories are based on distinct views，the former from the macrocosm and the later from the microcosm.
Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons for that human tend to make fallacies during the cause of comprehending and cognizing facts，these reasons should never be the excuses to doubt every conclusion we might draw from facts. Based on certain rational inference and proper knowledge fundament，the conclusions we make might well be justifiable，if not completely right，to certain degree. What we need to do is to promote the enterprise of pursuing the better answer and try to use the result we have get to application，instead of wasting our time to undue doubt and suspicion. Though the medical scientists have not fully understood the mechanism of how the does the implanted organ interact with the wounded body，they are not refrain from using the implanting skill to save patients，of course the precondition or which is that this technology is much well established than the fundamental theory.
To sum up，while I advocate the speaker's opinion that it is inevitable for human to comprehend facts inaccurately，for the reason of the limitation of the abilities，I essentially disagree with his assertion that facts will continually alter themselves，as well as his recommendation to discredit any piece of fact. In the final analysis，I would arguer once more that facts never change and although the misunderstanding to them is inevitable，we should not defer ourselves from the pursuit to fully comprehending them.
GRE写作相关文章：
★ 学习资料库
