實例講解新gre作文官方范文
1、官方范文的重要性不言而喻，大家對官方范文的態度也有褒有貶，有人說這些6分的官方文章都是大牛寫出來的，我們學不來，于是有的同學的重心就轉向了北美范文。但有一點是不可否認的官方范文是真的6分，可是ets從來沒承認過任何一個北美范文是六分的，盡管也確實都是很好的文章。
2、關于argument的重要性
很多人認為argument相對于issue來說容易些，也更好操作些，更容易拿高分。我個人認為這是個誤區。我們最后拿到的成績是個平均分，沒有人知道具體每篇是多少。盡管有的同學會猜測自己得分是多少多少，但是猜測畢竟是猜測。因為游戲是ets定的，他的標準和我們心中接受的標準肯定是不一樣的，打個比方，看看后面第三篇滿分范文，讓一般人看，估計沒有幾個人會毫不猶豫地給滿分，甚至高分，但在ets眼中它就是滿分;另外，實際上的模版寫出來的argu文章和官方范文給出的滿分文章是有很大差別的，主要體現在是一個是零散湊成的而另一個是有核心思想的，我會在后面的分析中具體說明。既然這樣，那完全有可能最終4分是來源于3分的argue加5分的issue，而不是反之。所以說，我們有可能高估了我們寫argument的能力。
3、對于官方范文，實際上這些看上去很天馬行空的文章，潛在的蘊涵了ets所要求的所有要點。之所以很多人看了很多遍沒有看出什么可借鑒的地方，源于兩點：一是沒有和awintro上的要求相對應起來看，二是沒有把有限的6篇官方范文進行橫比。
4、本文整體結構：
第一部分awintro中A部分重點語句的歸納和梳理，方便與后面的分析相對照。這里所有的英文均一字不差的摘自awintro。同時也作為我的另一篇文章awintro的解讀中的argument部分的補充。
第二部分是我的對于全部6份官方范文的分析，本文屬于個人觀點，一家之言難免存在偏頗和不足之處，懇請大家多多指教。
第三部分為總結。
第四部分為了顯示不是純扯淡，并讓我的證明更加具體，我按照我分析出來的結果也獨立寫了一篇文章，請大家狂拍。
注：我把awintro和沒有加入分析的六個范文放在附件里了，歡迎大家下載。
5、ets就像是一個羞澀的女孩，從來不會直接告訴我們她想要什么，但同時，也在無時不刻的不在暗示我們她想要什么。
新gre作文官方范文全解析
1、在拿到題目后應該找出這些：what is offered as evidence, support, or proof;
what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded;what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof;what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated。總結一下：即論據，結論，推理過程中的未加證明的假設，論據中的潛在后果。這四點都是需要我們盡量展示在第一段里面的。
2、同時，還要考慮原題目中的邏輯鏈：In addition, you should consider the structure of the argument。在這過程中更重要的是：sometimes implicit steps in the thinking process and consider whether the movement from each one to the next is logically sound。這是我們攻擊的要點，尤其是隱含的邏輯步驟。
3、在分析時：You will not be expected to know methods of analysis or technical terms.隨后在范文中可以看出，幾乎是沒有那種像那樣精確錯誤名詞的，而只是就著錯誤本身的邏輯進行分析。不需要給人感覺咱們特意學過邏輯，如果拽那些名詞就給人感覺咱們特意學過邏輯，嘿嘿那既然是專業的要求也就更加苛刻了。
4、awintro中舉一個例子：For instance, in one topic an elementary school principal might conclude that the new playground equipment has improved student attendance because absentee rates have declined since it was installed.論證的思路為：意識到存在它因you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,提供具體的它因 to offer some common-sense examples, 從結論考慮，怎樣才能使論證完整有力，即如何改進and perhaps to suggest what would be necessary to verify the conclusion. For instance, absentee rates might have decreased because the climate was mild. This would have to be ruled out in order for the principals conclusion to be valid.
5、官方認為的有幾個關鍵名詞需要解釋，其中analysis這個詞的解釋很重要，很多同學知道這個詞的意思是分析，但什么是分析就說得不是很清楚了。這里給出了清晰的答案：the process of breaking something down into its component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up the whole。說白了，就是把原題中的三段式論證給打拆開，逐一地進行分析。同樣的analytical writing的核心也就是拆開原命題，分成1串邏輯鏈，然后一部分一部分地討論。
6、核心論證方法：找出隱含假設identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible;尋找它因和尋找反例think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can;加條件后討論think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims;提出改進方案ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound。同學們以上四點是核心論證方法!!!所有的滿分范文中都用到了這四種方法。
其中，在論證時需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims。這里重要的是加上一個常識性條件后，能意識到，有些情況，是支持原命題的。這一點至關重要，我們是討論，要求同存異，而不是一味的批駁。 7、滿分作文的模式：essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the main points of the critique。先復述題目，然后清晰的表明觀點，然后發展。
8、高分作文的攻擊順序：You might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the arguments line of reasoning.這里給出了兩種攻擊順序，根據我讀了一個多月awintro的經驗來看，一般官方給出的建議總是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推薦issue觀點的時候總是把平衡觀點放在最后。所以這里比較好的方案是先質疑一個核心的假設，然后再按照原文邏輯來搞。
9、6分作文標準：
A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical paper in this category
? clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
? develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
? effectively supports the main points of the critique
? demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
? demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor errors范文分析
第一篇文章
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing or any light-reflecting material . Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
原題邏輯順序為：數據顯示了對保護裝備的需求==〉展開說明這個數據是怎樣顯示這樣的需求的==〉結論：為了達到這個效果我們應該重金買這保護設備。
Benchmark 6
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前兩句首先肯定了原命題中值得肯定的地方。這是求同存異的表現。注意這里第一句作者同意原命題的同時，在第二句緊接著就給出了展開的證明。而沒有光是羅列觀點。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再說原命題是存在邏輯漏洞的，即它因。這里并沒有展開論證，因為這是全文的中心句，整個文章都在后面給予論證。同時，最后半句給出了論據中的潛在后果。
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear and protective gear . body打頭第一段是屬于攻擊總前提假設的，作者認為這個是有必要在討論一切之前弄清楚的。論證方法為質疑假設，加條件后討論，提出建議。實際上，這個前提對應的就是開頭段的前兩句話。深層的含義就是，盡管我在開頭對你的某一個部分作了讓步似的同意，但是這個同意也是建立在一定的假設基礎上的，要是這個假設搞不清楚，哼哼我讓不讓步還不一定呢!本段就來討論這個假設基礎。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the other is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 這兩句分別從兩個方面進行了論述，為本段第一句話的論證進行服務，每一方面的具體方法是先定義，再比較。論證方法為加上不同的條件后進行討論，比如前一句話假定只有防護性裝備會怎樣，后一句話假定只有保護性裝備會怎么樣。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 這里提出了作者的建議，即如何通過進一步的完善使原命題更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果這個問題解決了后面的討論才能繼續。所以說，總的來說這一段是討論了原文一個核心的前提。 The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not.從本段起，連著的三個自然段就是按照原文邏輯鏈的順序進行攻擊和質疑。實際上，這三段對應的就是開頭段的however之后的話。本段先質疑了人的本質的差異。論證方法是加條件后討論。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.以上三句話展開證明第一個分支觀點，論證方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段論。加入常識性條件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保護裝置==〉配戴裝置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。 Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上兩句展開證明第二個分支觀點，論證方法同樣為大名鼎鼎的三段論，加上常識性條件。即街道公園本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人會選擇安全的地方==〉來這里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。這里最后一點是我給補充上的，原文沒有論證完全，但是基本的框架還是有的。
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻擊邏輯鏈的第二步，受傷的程度沒有說清。這里的論證方法核心是質疑隱含假設，加條件后討論。 The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隱含假設。This is certainly not the case.指出它錯了。 Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends , skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人們晚上去滑的人多這個條件后討論，最終削弱原命題。
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻擊邏輯聯的第三步，質量好的不一定有用。核心論證方法為列舉它因和提出建議。 For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.簡單的t-shirt也能很有用。 Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
建議我們對器材考慮得更加全面些。
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.強調原文的初衷還是很好的，就好像兩個人在那里辯論，范文把原文給說急了，范文怕原文不高興了，就再哄哄他：別看我罵了這么多，你的初衷還是好的嘛!值得肯定。 Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最終還是委婉的表達了自己的建議。After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后補充論證自己的建議：論證方法為反證法。同時范文在最后嚇唬一嚇原文，告訴他不這樣做的可怕的后果。 Reader Comment on 6
This outstanding response demonstrates the writers insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompts fallacious reasoning could ...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear, is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the arguments root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
that preventive and protective gear are not the same
that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries
that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial
The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6.
小總結：
分析原題目中可取之處;指出原文中不足之處;推出論據中的潛在后果。正文中第一段質疑我認為的核心假設錯誤，后三段按原文邏輯順序攻擊三點，如本文中人的本質==〉人受的傷的差別==〉為防受傷，買質量好的就有用?可以看出，這三點是與原文中三段論式論證環環相扣的。這就是前面第一部分講解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具體應用。
邏輯方面的論證方法為：尋找并質疑隱含假設，列舉它因，加條件后討論，提出建議。
在語言方面的論證手法有：分情況討論，舉反例推繆。
最后的時候還是要首先肯定原文的可取之處如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善會有什么后果。
1、官方范文的重要性不言而喻，大家對官方范文的態度也有褒有貶，有人說這些6分的官方文章都是大牛寫出來的，我們學不來，于是有的同學的重心就轉向了北美范文。但有一點是不可否認的官方范文是真的6分，可是ets從來沒承認過任何一個北美范文是六分的，盡管也確實都是很好的文章。
2、關于argument的重要性
很多人認為argument相對于issue來說容易些，也更好操作些，更容易拿高分。我個人認為這是個誤區。我們最后拿到的成績是個平均分，沒有人知道具體每篇是多少。盡管有的同學會猜測自己得分是多少多少，但是猜測畢竟是猜測。因為游戲是ets定的，他的標準和我們心中接受的標準肯定是不一樣的，打個比方，看看后面第三篇滿分范文，讓一般人看，估計沒有幾個人會毫不猶豫地給滿分，甚至高分，但在ets眼中它就是滿分;另外，實際上的模版寫出來的argu文章和官方范文給出的滿分文章是有很大差別的，主要體現在是一個是零散湊成的而另一個是有核心思想的，我會在后面的分析中具體說明。既然這樣，那完全有可能最終4分是來源于3分的argue加5分的issue，而不是反之。所以說，我們有可能高估了我們寫argument的能力。
3、對于官方范文，實際上這些看上去很天馬行空的文章，潛在的蘊涵了ets所要求的所有要點。之所以很多人看了很多遍沒有看出什么可借鑒的地方，源于兩點：一是沒有和awintro上的要求相對應起來看，二是沒有把有限的6篇官方范文進行橫比。
4、本文整體結構：
第一部分awintro中A部分重點語句的歸納和梳理，方便與后面的分析相對照。這里所有的英文均一字不差的摘自awintro。同時也作為我的另一篇文章awintro的解讀中的argument部分的補充。
第二部分是我的對于全部6份官方范文的分析，本文屬于個人觀點，一家之言難免存在偏頗和不足之處，懇請大家多多指教。
第三部分為總結。
第四部分為了顯示不是純扯淡，并讓我的證明更加具體，我按照我分析出來的結果也獨立寫了一篇文章，請大家狂拍。
注：我把awintro和沒有加入分析的六個范文放在附件里了，歡迎大家下載。
5、ets就像是一個羞澀的女孩，從來不會直接告訴我們她想要什么，但同時，也在無時不刻的不在暗示我們她想要什么。
新gre作文官方范文全解析
1、在拿到題目后應該找出這些：what is offered as evidence, support, or proof;
what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded;what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof;what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated。總結一下：即論據，結論，推理過程中的未加證明的假設，論據中的潛在后果。這四點都是需要我們盡量展示在第一段里面的。
2、同時，還要考慮原題目中的邏輯鏈：In addition, you should consider the structure of the argument。在這過程中更重要的是：sometimes implicit steps in the thinking process and consider whether the movement from each one to the next is logically sound。這是我們攻擊的要點，尤其是隱含的邏輯步驟。
3、在分析時：You will not be expected to know methods of analysis or technical terms.隨后在范文中可以看出，幾乎是沒有那種像那樣精確錯誤名詞的，而只是就著錯誤本身的邏輯進行分析。不需要給人感覺咱們特意學過邏輯，如果拽那些名詞就給人感覺咱們特意學過邏輯，嘿嘿那既然是專業的要求也就更加苛刻了。
4、awintro中舉一個例子：For instance, in one topic an elementary school principal might conclude that the new playground equipment has improved student attendance because absentee rates have declined since it was installed.論證的思路為：意識到存在它因you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,提供具體的它因 to offer some common-sense examples, 從結論考慮，怎樣才能使論證完整有力，即如何改進and perhaps to suggest what would be necessary to verify the conclusion. For instance, absentee rates might have decreased because the climate was mild. This would have to be ruled out in order for the principals conclusion to be valid.
5、官方認為的有幾個關鍵名詞需要解釋，其中analysis這個詞的解釋很重要，很多同學知道這個詞的意思是分析，但什么是分析就說得不是很清楚了。這里給出了清晰的答案：the process of breaking something down into its component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up the whole。說白了，就是把原題中的三段式論證給打拆開，逐一地進行分析。同樣的analytical writing的核心也就是拆開原命題，分成1串邏輯鏈，然后一部分一部分地討論。
6、核心論證方法：找出隱含假設identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible;尋找它因和尋找反例think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can;加條件后討論think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims;提出改進方案ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound。同學們以上四點是核心論證方法!!!所有的滿分范文中都用到了這四種方法。
其中，在論證時需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims。這里重要的是加上一個常識性條件后，能意識到，有些情況，是支持原命題的。這一點至關重要，我們是討論，要求同存異，而不是一味的批駁。 7、滿分作文的模式：essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the main points of the critique。先復述題目，然后清晰的表明觀點，然后發展。
8、高分作文的攻擊順序：You might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the arguments line of reasoning.這里給出了兩種攻擊順序，根據我讀了一個多月awintro的經驗來看，一般官方給出的建議總是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推薦issue觀點的時候總是把平衡觀點放在最后。所以這里比較好的方案是先質疑一個核心的假設，然后再按照原文邏輯來搞。
9、6分作文標準：
A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical paper in this category
? clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
? develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
? effectively supports the main points of the critique
? demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
? demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor errors范文分析
第一篇文章
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing or any light-reflecting material . Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
原題邏輯順序為：數據顯示了對保護裝備的需求==〉展開說明這個數據是怎樣顯示這樣的需求的==〉結論：為了達到這個效果我們應該重金買這保護設備。
Benchmark 6
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前兩句首先肯定了原命題中值得肯定的地方。這是求同存異的表現。注意這里第一句作者同意原命題的同時，在第二句緊接著就給出了展開的證明。而沒有光是羅列觀點。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再說原命題是存在邏輯漏洞的，即它因。這里并沒有展開論證，因為這是全文的中心句，整個文章都在后面給予論證。同時，最后半句給出了論據中的潛在后果。
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear and protective gear . body打頭第一段是屬于攻擊總前提假設的，作者認為這個是有必要在討論一切之前弄清楚的。論證方法為質疑假設，加條件后討論，提出建議。實際上，這個前提對應的就是開頭段的前兩句話。深層的含義就是，盡管我在開頭對你的某一個部分作了讓步似的同意，但是這個同意也是建立在一定的假設基礎上的，要是這個假設搞不清楚，哼哼我讓不讓步還不一定呢!本段就來討論這個假設基礎。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the other is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 這兩句分別從兩個方面進行了論述，為本段第一句話的論證進行服務，每一方面的具體方法是先定義，再比較。論證方法為加上不同的條件后進行討論，比如前一句話假定只有防護性裝備會怎樣，后一句話假定只有保護性裝備會怎么樣。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 這里提出了作者的建議，即如何通過進一步的完善使原命題更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果這個問題解決了后面的討論才能繼續。所以說，總的來說這一段是討論了原文一個核心的前提。 The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not.從本段起，連著的三個自然段就是按照原文邏輯鏈的順序進行攻擊和質疑。實際上，這三段對應的就是開頭段的however之后的話。本段先質疑了人的本質的差異。論證方法是加條件后討論。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.以上三句話展開證明第一個分支觀點，論證方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段論。加入常識性條件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保護裝置==〉配戴裝置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。 Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上兩句展開證明第二個分支觀點，論證方法同樣為大名鼎鼎的三段論，加上常識性條件。即街道公園本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人會選擇安全的地方==〉來這里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。這里最后一點是我給補充上的，原文沒有論證完全，但是基本的框架還是有的。
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻擊邏輯鏈的第二步，受傷的程度沒有說清。這里的論證方法核心是質疑隱含假設，加條件后討論。 The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隱含假設。This is certainly not the case.指出它錯了。 Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends , skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人們晚上去滑的人多這個條件后討論，最終削弱原命題。
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻擊邏輯聯的第三步，質量好的不一定有用。核心論證方法為列舉它因和提出建議。 For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.簡單的t-shirt也能很有用。 Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
建議我們對器材考慮得更加全面些。
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.強調原文的初衷還是很好的，就好像兩個人在那里辯論，范文把原文給說急了，范文怕原文不高興了，就再哄哄他：別看我罵了這么多，你的初衷還是好的嘛!值得肯定。 Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最終還是委婉的表達了自己的建議。After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后補充論證自己的建議：論證方法為反證法。同時范文在最后嚇唬一嚇原文，告訴他不這樣做的可怕的后果。 Reader Comment on 6
This outstanding response demonstrates the writers insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompts fallacious reasoning could ...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear, is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the arguments root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
that preventive and protective gear are not the same
that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries
that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial
The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6.
小總結：
分析原題目中可取之處;指出原文中不足之處;推出論據中的潛在后果。正文中第一段質疑我認為的核心假設錯誤，后三段按原文邏輯順序攻擊三點，如本文中人的本質==〉人受的傷的差別==〉為防受傷，買質量好的就有用?可以看出，這三點是與原文中三段論式論證環環相扣的。這就是前面第一部分講解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具體應用。
邏輯方面的論證方法為：尋找并質疑隱含假設，列舉它因，加條件后討論，提出建議。
在語言方面的論證手法有：分情況討論，舉反例推繆。
最后的時候還是要首先肯定原文的可取之處如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善會有什么后果。
