ARGUMENT结构性指导

ARGUMENT的结构性比较固定，易于掌握，用过新东方书的考生出手都能写出个标准的“经典5段(4段)式”，可以说这种模式是完全可以采用，同时也是最好的，最有效的。相比较其余什么“老管写作模式”，“思马得模板作文”，这种模式是上乘的首选，而且条理清晰，可读性好，容易方便阅卷人给分。这里由于从网上海量作文习作看来，几乎所有考生都对ARGUMENT的这种写作模式相当熟悉，因此仅对其中出现的普遍问题强调和纠正一下：

(1)开头和结尾：由于ARGUMENT时间的紧迫性，开头和结尾应该尽量简短而明确，其篇幅总量应不超过正文部分的1/3。很多考生一上来就花了5，6分钟把题干中的论据结论用复杂的长句子转述，在象征性地于结尾来一句诸如“经过我反复检查，其中论据模糊，逻辑错误横生”之类的套话。然后在正文又要分条攻击阐述。这是极不科学的“凑字数”的模式，相信老外阅卷人一天看个百来篇的这类文章，很容易产生“恶意”和“过敏”，一怒之下有种判为“类同卷”的冲动。正确的做法永远只有，用1-2句话明明白白告诉阅卷人基本的结论和你的态度，作到简短而有力，让阅卷人一眼就看到你的观点，并且知道你已经读懂题目并且作了基本的准确回应。罗列证据是留给正文的事。另外对于结尾，不要总是要告戒出题者要如何如何加强自己的论证，我们往往可以反其道而行，用上点“讽刺”，“黑色幽默”等手法让枯燥的文章在末尾展示出良好的可读性，博得阅卷人的“好感”。

(2)正文：尽管这是逻辑作文，题干给的像以前的逻辑单题，但是她是一种作文，不是客观题。大量的使用刻板的逻辑句式对于文章的生动性“百害而无一利”。很多考生背会了什么“孙氏逻辑句法”就在正文处大打出手，用些看上去极能唬人的分析句式，像逻辑专业出身的人那样，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".连拉丁文都用上了，你说老美做何感想。按中国人的话说，叫“掉书袋”，当诸位考生还在自我为这种呆板的句式乐此不疲的时候，你是否留意过GRE作文在你的手下是不是有些散发出像死尸一样的苍白来。作文者，就是要以“能说明问题”为先，而不是在这里“装神弄鬼”，尽管逻辑方面的论证我们需要逻辑知识的支撑，但是我们要作好的是只是“借题发挥”，“点到即止”。正确的做法应该是掌握住“错误”，揪住对方的小辫，然后适当搭配着证据的罗列称述，合理选用逻辑句式，一说明问题立刻回来，尽量用例证不要去做逻辑上的因果论证。具体请参看对比以下范文：

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."

(病历文)

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, and 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, under the present work condition it 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 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. (587 words)

点评：该范文充斥着上面讨论的各种毛病，仅开头就131字，加上结尾超过200字，已经远远超过正文1/3篇幅，是不可取的。许多模式句型充斥，结尾老套，不值得学习借鉴。另外很多考生关心这样一来字数就不合“要求”。ETS从来没有对作文字数有要求，尽管网上流行说法认为阅卷者将字数列为打分项目之一，但是在ETS公布的评分标准中是觅不着踪迹的，况且ETS极讲究科学性，不会以貌取人，但求“以理服人”，这从他考试的设计可以看出来。所以正常的ARGUMENT作文可以在“350——500”字之间，而ISSUE可在“450——600”之间，这是按正常打字速度与思维速度指定的标准。很多网上作文包括我这里的某些范文都有远远超过500，600字的，很少是在真正全封闭作业下，45分钟或30分钟内完成的，在考试时间内，按上述标准的字数作文拿“满分”是绰绰有余的，事实说明一切，我的诸多战友，包括前面提及的Violet，从来都是靠“5步一杀”，“3步一枪”，(500字左右ISSUE，300字左右ARGUMENT)，在4，6级词汇范围内稳拿5分——6分，可见一斑。不相信的考生应该自己在PP2、PP3的作文模考中亲身体验，我会在最后推荐大家一个行之有效的快速练习作文速度和质量“枪手作文速成训练法”，我们这一辈称为“替身杀手”的人都是这样练出来的。