孙远的GMAT作文讲义
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.