GRE作文入门和进阶九
|
（范文） The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance， his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent， yet it can't stand much reexamination. I agree to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people's diet and heart disease， but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain， as we all know， many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance， some type of particular protein it might include， instead of the iron， is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer's peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption. Moreover， even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below， the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer's elicitation， we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron， however， we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense， “Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease？” The answer we can't obtain through this short argument， thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained. As it stands， the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies， which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people's health and life， scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected； and it is just for this point， I'm afraid， no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. （352 words） ——silentwings 原则二：“大胆创新，敢于说'不'”。 这个原则是就思想内容本身而提出的，主要就ISSUE而言。之所以如此，是因为现在的题库中有太多显而易见的明显带有“常识偏见性”的话题，比如下面我们要举例说明的这一题： 33.“Creating an appealing image has become more important in contemporary society than is the reality or truth behind that image.” 我想大部分考生在现场一定会不约而同地对这道题说“DISAGREE”，因为传统的教育和是非观很容易让我们接受这样的一个观点——“人不可貌像，海水不可斗量”。这样，ETS胆敢认为“表面的虚浮外表比实质的东西重要”，充分暴露了它资本主义没落腐朽的罪恶本质和虚伪贪婪的丑恶嘴脸，于是打笔一挥，打他个鼻青脸肿再说。 不可否认，这个话题写“否定”符合正常价值观和正常思维，比较容易找到地方下手，但是平常我们在训练准备作文时，应该在遇到这类“难于从反面论证”的题目尽量摈弃这种正常思维，而锻炼自己的“创新思维”，即敢于对自己的“陈规思维”说“不”！大家可以发现，ETS找来的每道话题都是经过严格的筛选和试验的，以保证其客观性和公正性，从而无论你对该话题持什么态度，都不会影响你在现实中的表现，从而每个观点阐述就是一种思维逻辑的“游戏”，ETS不是要看你的思想观点到底出不出格，而是看你将任何一个你所持有的观点论证的天衣无缝。 因为在ISSUE中，你完全可以将一个漏洞百出的话题包装成真理，同样也可将真理辩驳成天大的谬误，这没有关系，对于一个特别注重“新思维”开发的美国人来说，创新思维无疑是他们最钟爱的东西，这也就是高分作文的一个捷径——求新求异！我始终相信，只要肯往这方面想，思维的马达很容易就开动起来，通过不断练习，你真的会发现你的一手“铜齿铁牙”已经足以让你在GRE作文的考场上称雄称霸，“满分”是意料中的事。下面我提供两篇范文，第一篇是正常思维论辩，第二篇则是从AGREE的角度来论证，读者可以从中参详一二。 |
