孙远的GMAT作文讲义

时间:2023-05-04 21:26:13 其它英语写作 我要投稿
  • 相关推荐

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

孙远的GMAT作文讲义

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.

【孙远的GMAT作文讲义】相关文章:

寄远,寄远赵嘏,寄远的意思,寄远赏析 -诗词大全03-13

送远使,送远使张籍,送远使的意思,送远使赏析 -诗词大全03-13

忆远,忆远张籍,忆远的意思,忆远赏析 -诗词大全03-13

近与远作文07-10

写远的作文09-24

远忆的作文10-18

远与近作文10-10

酬孙洛阳,酬孙洛阳张籍,酬孙洛阳的意思,酬孙洛阳赏析 -诗词大全03-13

关于孙杨的作文12-16

寄远曲,寄远曲张籍,寄远曲的意思,寄远曲赏析 -诗词大全03-13