一、考试指南
GMAT作文考两篇作文，一篇是一个是非问题分析（Analysis of an Issue）; 另一篇作文
是一个逻辑问题分析（Analysis of an Argument）。两篇作文各考30分钟，加起来共一个
小时。简单地说，第一篇作文是立论，第二篇作文是驳论。
1. 逻辑问题分析例文
The following appeared in a memorandum from the Director of Human Resources
to the executive officers of Company X.
“Last year, we surveyed our employees on improvements needed at Company X
by having them rank, in order of importance, the issues presented in a list
of possible improvements. Improved communications between employees and
management was consistently ranked as the issue of highest importance by
the employees who responded to the survey. As you know, we have since
instituted regular communications sessions conducted by high-level
management, which the employees can attend on a voluntary basis. Therefore,
it is likely that most employees at Company X now feel that the improvement
most needed at the company has been made.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be
sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the
argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable
assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative, explanations or
counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort
of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the
argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would
help you better evaluate its conclusion.
2. 是非问题分析例文
“Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities as
separate as possible from the workplace.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated
above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own
experience, observations, or reading.
GMAT作文题库是怎么回事
GMAT作文的评分标准
GMAT作文如何阅卷和评分
二、课程安排
1. 教学内容
Part One: Analysis of an Argument
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Case Study 3
Case Study 4
Part Two: Analysis of an Issue
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Case Study 3
Case Study 4
Part Three: Summary
1. Language Skills
2. Prep Tips
2. 教学方法
(1)案例分析
逻辑分析(4个)
是非分析(4个)
(2)作文的结构和模式
(3)论证方法
(4)语言问题
Part One
三、逻辑问题例文分析
Case Study 1：
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper.
“The computerized onboard warning system that will be installed in
commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane
collisions. One plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s
transponder--a radio set that signals a plane’s course--in order to
determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be
sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the
argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable
assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative, explanations or
counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort
of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the
argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would
help you better evaluate its conclusion.
2分作文:
This argument has no information about air collisions. I think most cases
happen is new airports because the air traffic is heavy. In this case sound
airport control could solve the problem.
I think this argument is logically reasonable. Its assumption is that plane
collisions are caused by planes that don’t know each others positions. So
pilots can do nothing, if they know each other’s position through the
system it will solve the problem. If it can provide evidence the problem is
lack of knowledge of each other’s positions, it will be more sound and
persuasive.
More information about air collisions is helpful, (the reason for air
collisions)
------------------------------------------------第一课时完------------------
-----------------------------
4分作文
The argument is not logically convincing. It does not state whether all
planes can receive signals from each other. It does not state whether
planes constantly receive signals. If they only receive signals once every
certain time interval, collisions will not definitely be prevented. Further
if they receive a signal right before they are about to crash, they cannot
avoid each other.
The main flaw in the argument is that it assumes that the two planes, upon
receiving each other’s signals, will know which evasive action to take.
For example, the two planes could be going towards each other and then
receive the signals. If one turns at an angle to the left and the other
turns at an angle to the right, the two planes will still crash. Even if
they receive an updated signal, they will not have time, to avoid each
other.
The following argument would be more sound and persuasive. The new warning
system will solve the problem of midair plane collisions. Each plane will
receive constant, continual signals from each other. If the two planes are
headed in a direction where they will crash, the system will coordinate the
signals and tell one plane to go one way, and the other plane to go another
way. The new system will ensure that the two planes will turn in different
directions so they don’t crash by trying to prevent the original crash. In
addition, the planes will be able to see themselves and the other on a
computer screen, to aid in the evasive action.
6分作文：
The argument that this warning system will virtually solve the problem of
midair plane collisions omits some important concerns that be addressed to
substantiate the argument. The statement that follows the des cription of
what this warning system will do simply describes the system and how it
operates. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the
warning system, and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the
main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the cause of the problem
of air plane collisions, the use of the system by pilots and flight
specialists, or who is involved in the midair plane collisions. First, the
argument assumes that the cause of the problem is that the planes’
courses, the likelihood of collisions, and actions to avoid collisions are
unknown or inaccurate. But if the cause of the problem of midair plane
collisions is that pilots are not paying attention to their computer
systems or flight operations, the warning system will not solve the
collision problem. Second, the argument never addresses the interface
between individuals and the system and how this will affect the warning
system’s objective of obliterating the problem of collisions. If the pilot
or flight specialist does not conform to what the warning system suggests,
air collisions will not be avoided. Finally, if planes other than
commercial airliners are involved in the collisions, the problem of these
collisions cannot be solved by a warning system that will not be installed
on non-commercial airliners. The argument also does not address what would
happen in the event that the warning system collapsed, falls, or does not
work properly.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or
persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely
explaining what the system supposedly does, the argument would have been
more thorough and convincing.
Case Study 2：
The following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum: “On
average, 9 out of every 1000 passengers who traveled on Avia Airlines in
1993 filed a complaint about our luggage-handing procedures. This means
that although some 1 percent of our passengers were unhappy with those
procedures, the overwhelming majority were quite satisfied with them; thus
it would appear that a review of the procedures is not important to our
goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia's passengers.”
Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In explaining your
point of view, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of
evidence in the argument. Also discuss what, if anything, would make the
argument more sound and persuasive, or would help you to better evaluate
its conclusion.
Student Essay
In Avia Airlines's survey, nearly 1 present of its passengers were unhappy
with its baggage-handling procedures. The result sounds good. But the small
pool of samples in regard with all passengers, the weakness of procedure of
complaint, and other reasons below will weaken the result, or draw to an
opposite conclusion .
Avia Airlines can only survive by transporting hundreds of thousands of
passengers each years. Many passengers who were not satisfied with its
baggage-handling procedures maybe did not write down a complaint. Assuming
that only one percent of those unsatisfied passengers complained in written
forms, the number of unsatisfied would be 900 out of every 1000 passenger.
It is a horrible ratio. Avia Airlines could be murdered by the remaining
899 unsatisfied ones.
To 1000, 9 seems a very small ratio. But if the first of the nine
unsatisfied passengers is President Clinton, the story is attactive to most
reporters. In some hours or days, Avia Arline will exist in newspapers,
magazines, TV sports, reports and Internet. This kind of free advertisement
will surely bomb AA to sky.
Avia Airlines has too many competitors in and out of USA. Clients of other
Airlines, for instance, Singapore. Airlines or Japan Airlines may have no
complaints about baggage-handling procedures. AA may gradually loose more
and more of its passengers and die out.
So AA' s conclusion would. be absurd through reasoning. Unsatisfied
passengers who did not complain, the famous persons who complained, and
competitors with no unsatisfied passengers all will make disastrous result
for the Avia Airlines. So a review of the procedure is very important to
its goal of maintaining or increasing the number of passengers.
Revised Essay
In this argument, the arguer concludes that a review of Avia Airline's
baggage-handling procedures will not further its goal of maintaining or
increasing the number of Avia passengers. To support this conclusion, the
arguer points out that only one percent of passengers who traveled on Avia
last year filed a complaint. In addition, the arguer reasons that the great
majority of Avia passengers are happy with baggage handling at the airline.
This argument suffers from two critical flaws.
In the first place, the argument turns on the assumption that the 99
percent of Avia passengers who did not complain were happy with the
airline's baggage-handling procedures. However, the arguer provides no
evidence to support this assumption. The fact that, on average, 9 out of
1000 passengers took the time and effort to formally complain indicates
nothing about the experiences or attitudes of the remaining 991. It is
possible that many passengers were displeased but too busy to formally
complain, while others had no opinion at all. Lacking more complete
information about passengers' attitudes, we cannot assume that the great
majority of passengers who did not complain were happy.
In the second place, in the absence of information about the number of
passengers per flight and about the complaint records of competing
airlines, the statistics presented in the memorandum might distort the
seriousness of the problem. Given that most modern aircrafts carry as many
as 300 to 500 passengers, it is possible that Avia received as many as 4 or
5 complaints per flight. The arguer unfairly trivializes this record.
Moreover, the arguer fails to compare Avia's record with those of its
competitors. It is possible that a particular competitor received virtually
no baggage-handling complaints last year. If so, Avia's one percent
complaint rate might be significant enough to motivate customers to switch
to another airline.
In conclusion, the arguer fails to demonstrate that a review of the baggage-
handling procedures at Avia Airlines is not needed to maintain or increase
the number of Avia's passengers. To strengthen the argument, the author
would have to provide evidence that most Avia passengers last year were
indeed happy with baggage-handling procedures. To better evaluate the
argument, we would need more information about the numbers of Avia
passengers per flight last year and about the baggage-handling records of
Avia's competitors.
------------------------------------------------第二课时完------------------
-----------------------------
四、Argument开头段模式训练
.写作的开头尤其重要
.事先准备一个开头模式
.进行适当调整
.已经提出的模式：
第一段（4句话）：
第一句归纳原论证结论(In this argument, the arguer concludes that)
第二句话指出原论证一个方面的论据(To support this conclusion, the arguer
points out that)
第三句话指出另一个方面论据(In addition, the arguer reasons that)
第四句话表明对论述的基本判断（此判断有逻辑方面的缺陷）
Sample 1:
Argument Question :
The following appeared as part of an article in a trade magazine for
breweries.
"Magic Hat Brewery recently released the results of a survey of visitors to
its tasting room last year. Magic Hat reports that the majority of visitors
asked to taste its low-calorie beers. To boost sales, other small breweries
should brew low-calorie beers as well."
开头段:
In this argument, the arguer concludes that all small breweries should brew
low-calorie beers in order to increase sales. To support this conclusion,
the arguer points out that most visitors to the tasting room of Magic Hat
Brewery showed interest in its low-calorie beers. In addition, the arguer
reasons that since most visitors like to taste the low-calorie beers of
Magic Hat Brewery, most customers of other small breweries would also like
to buy low-calorie beers. A careful examination of this argument would
reveal how groundless it is.
Sample 2:
Argument Question :
The following appeared as part of an article in the book section on a
newspaper.
"Currently more and more books are becoming available in electronic form-
either free-of-charge on the Internet or for a very low price-per-book in
compact disc.* Thus literary classics are likely to be read more widely
than ever before. People who couldn't have purchased these works at
bookstore prices will now be able to read them for little or no money;
similarly, people who find it inconvenient to visit libraries and wait for
books to be returned by other patrons will now have access to whatever
classic they choose from their home or work computers. This increase in
access to literary classics will radically affect the public taste in
reading, creating a far more sophisticated and learned reading audience
than has ever existed before."
*A compact disc is a small portable disc capable of storing relatively
large amounts of data that can be read by a computer.
开头段:
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the increasing availability of
books in electronic form will automatically bring about a far more
sophisticated and learned reading audience. To support this conclusion, the
arguer points out that the Internet and compact discs have made it more
convenient for readers to find, buy or read books. In addition, the arguer
reasons that since more people have easier access to literary classics,
tasteful readers will emerge in large numbers. This argument is flawed in
two major aspects.
五、逻辑问题例文分析
Case Study 3：
The following appeared in the editorial section of a newspaper.
“As public concern over drug abuse has increased, authorities have become
more vigilant in their effort to prevent illegal drugs from entering the
country. Many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana,
which is bulky, or heroin, which has a market too small to justify the risk
of severe punishment, to cocaine. Thus enforcement efforts have ironically
resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine.”
Student Essay
The argument that enforcement effort over illegal drag trade, incurred by
the increase of public concern over drug abuse, resulted in an observed
increase in the illegal use of cocaine sound reasonable at first. But the
fact that movement against drag abuse is the venture of all human being and
all the responsibility of all governments, and other reasons below will
weak the result, or draw to an opposite conclusion.
Drug abuse brings us human being nothing but a disaster, mental aberration,
debilitated health, career desolation, family breakage and people’s
totally out of control. No doubt, however small the result will be, every
government should take some action against drug abuse, make people way from
illegal drugs and bring a steady and health society.
All kinds of illegal drugs, not only cocaine, endangers our lives.
Considering the enforcement effort over illegal drugs, we should view the
efforts over the total amount of marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other
illegal drugs. Since many drug traffickers have consequently switched from
marijuana and heroin to cocaine because of government’s action, We can not
tell the change on the total amount of drugs if, with the dramatic decrease
of marijuana and heroin, this total amount decreased as the result of
enforcement. We can claim that opposite the argument, the enforcement of
effort do overawe the drug traffickers.
The argument also tells us that government’s efforts to prevent illegal
drugs from entering the country had effectively made drug traffickers
switched form marijuana and heroin to cocaine, which means with the
decrease on marijuana and heroin, the government can focus their effort on
cocaine. We can see the bright future that authorities will effectively
beat the cocaine traffickers just as they beat the marijuana and heroin
traffickers.
So the argument’s conclusion would absurd though reasoning. The
authorities action did some efforts to the illegal drug abuse they should
continue the enforcement against drug abuse, with efficiency.
Revised Essay
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the government’s efforts to
prevent illegal drugs from entering the country have resulted in an obvious
increase in the illegal use of cocaine. To support this conclusion, the
arguer points out that the authorities’ more vigilant efforts to thwart
the illegal drug traffic in the country have forced drug traffickers to
switch from marijuana and heroin to cocaine. In addition, the arguer
reasons that the increase in the supply of cocaine has resulted in its
increasing use. This argument commits two critical fallacies.
In the first place, this argument commits a fallacy of causal
oversimplification. The arguer assumes that an increase in the supply of
cocaine is sufficient to bring about an increase in its use. While the
supply of cocaine may be one of the contributing factors to its use, it is
insufficient. The presumption required to substantiate this view is that
drug users are not particular about which drugs they use, so that if
marijuana and heroin are not available, they will switch to whatever drug
is available--cocaine in this case. This assumption is not reasonable.
Marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not alike in their effects on users; nor
are they alike in the manner in which they are ingested or in their
addictive properties. The view that drug users’ choice of drugs is simply
a function of supply overlooks these important differences. Besides, the
argument is self-contradictory. If it were true, as stated by the arguer,
that cocaine trafficking is both safer than the bulky marijuana and more
profitable than heroin that has a small market, this fact alone would have
motivated the drug traffickers to switch to cocaine. In this case, the
government enforcement effort should not be held accountable for the rise
in the use of cocaine.
------------------------------------------------第三课时完------------------
-----------------------------
In the second place, the arguer fails to provide the necessary information
based on which we can evaluate the comprehensive effect of the government's
action. The background of the incident is that the drug abuse has now
become ever more serious a social problem than anytime in the past. And
this is what motivated the government actions against drug trafficking in
the first place. We, therefore, can reasonably assume that before the
government took actions the abuse of all major popular drugs had been on
the trend of increase, including the use of cocaine. The newspaper
editorial, however, only mentions the observed increase in the use of
cocaine while failing to provide any information to specify the current
increase and that before the government strengthened its drug contraction
efforts. We thus cannot compare the patterns of change in this aspect
before and after the government actions in order to reach any valid
conclusion about the impact of the government actions on the use of
cocaine.
If the trend of increase in cocaine abuse has been slowed down, or if the
total amount of illegal drugs in the market has been significantly reduced,
even though the absolute use of cocaine is still increasing, we would say
that the government efforts in apprehending drug traffickers are somehow
effective.
In conclusion, the arguer oversimplifies the cause-and-effect relationship
between government's increased efforts and the observed increase in the
illegal use of cocaine. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have
to provide evidence that the government's enforcement efforts have directly
led to the increased supply and use of cocaine. To better evaluate the
argument, we would need more information about the trend of increase in the
use of cocaine and other drugs before and after the government's actions.
六、Argument典型逻辑错误
1. 调查类逻辑错误
抽样的程序是否具有随机性
样品是否足够大
Example 1:
The following appeared as part of an article in a trade magazine for
breweries.
“Magic Hat Brewery recently released the results of a survey of visitors
to its tasting room last year. Magic Hat reports that the majority of
visitors asked to taste its low-calorie beers. To boost sales, other small
breweries should brew low-calorie beers as well.”
Example 2:
The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial
management and consulting firm.
“We have learned from an employee of Witful Ltd. that is accounting
department by checking about 10% of the last month purchasing invoices for
errors any inconsistencies saved the company some $10,000 in over-payments.
In order to help our clients increase the net gains, we should advise each
of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for
errors. Such recommendation could also help us get the Witful account by
demonstrating to Witful the regressness of our methods."
A. The source of the news is not dependable.
B. The sample cannot reflect the general condition.
2. 错误类比
Example:
The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Carlo's Clothing
to the staff.
"Since Disc Depot, the music store on the next block, began a new radio
advertising campaign last year, its business has grown dramatically, as
evidenced by the large increase in foot traffic into the store. While the
Disc Depot's owners have apparently become wealthy enough to retire,
profits at Carlo's Clothing have remained stagnant for the past three
years. In order to boost our sales and profits, we should therefore switch
from newspaper advertising to frequent radio advertisements like those for
Disc Depot."
A. First, the argument rests on a fallacy of post hoc, ergo proper hoc.
B. Another problem with this argument is that it suffers from a false
analogy.
3. 证据遗失类逻辑错误
Example:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local paper.
"Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television
channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighboring town's local channel,
KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in
advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for
advertisement its spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming
issues as well."
A. The argument is based on a false analogy.
B. In addition, the arguer ignores other ways to increase the applications
for advertising spots on KMTV.
七、逻辑问题例文分析
Case Study 4:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter:
“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management
issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey
indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to
survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of
corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”
Student Essay
First, the argument does not address how the nearly 1200 workers were
selected, so the representativeness of the sample is doubtful. If the
workers were selected by voluntary participation, then there is possibility
that these voluntary workers tended to care more about management issues.
Second, the argument does not prove the credibility of the answers of the
workers. It leaves open the possibility that workers who actually did not
care about management issues may in a survey gave positive answers for
various reasons.
Third, the argument only confines to such management issues as corporate
restructuring and redesign of benefits programs, which happen to have close
and main influence on workers.
Revised Essay
Based upon a survey among workers that indicates a high level of interest
in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesigning of benefits
programs, the arguer concludes that workers are not apathetic about
management issues. Specifically, the arguer assumes that since 79 percent
of the 1200 workers who responded to the survey expressed interest in these
topics, the notion that workers are generally apathetic about management
issues is incorrect. The reasoning in this argument is problematic in
several respects.
First, the survey itself is open to question. The argument does not
indicate how the nearly 1200 workers were selected. If the workers were
selected by voluntary participation instead of random sampling, then there
is the possibility that these voluntary workers tended to care more about
management issues. In this case, the representiveness of the sample is
problematic. In addition, the statistics cited in the editorial may be
misleading because the total number of workers employed by the corporation
is not specified. For example, if the corporation employs 2000 workers, the
fact that 79 percent of the nearly 1200 respondents showed interest in
these topics provides strong support for the conclusion. On the other hand,
if the corporation employs 200,000 workers, the conclusion would be much
weaker. Furthermore, the survey does not involve workers of other companies
throughout the country.
Another problem with the argument is that it makes a hasty generalization
about the types of issues that workers are interested in. It accords with
common sense that workers would be interested in corporate restructuring
and redesigning of benefits programs, since these issues affect workers
very directly. However, it is unfair to assume that workers would be
similarly interested in other management issues, ones that do not affect
them or affect them less directly.
In conclusion, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen
it, the arguer would have to show that the respondents account for a
significant and representative portion of all workers. Additionally, the
arguer must provide evidence to prove that workers do have general interest
in other management topics--not just those that affect them directly.
