关于Argument的写作指导

各位好，我是Dr_JohnDoe，去年杀G时长期混迹于gter的G作文版（相同ID）。考试准备阶段共写了40余篇ISSUE和30余篇ARGU，最终AW得到了4.5分。

准备AW是我迄今为止最痛苦的经历。考前最后一个月，我把自己关在小黑屋里拼命地敲键盘，因为AW是最没有把握的部分。期间，我不仅研读了《新GRE写作5.5》和《北美范文》，还翻墙看老美怎么写作文，可以说是竭尽全力，鞠躬尽瘁。因此，虽然我的AW分数不算特别高，但我对AW是有一定研究的，尤其是对新G写作指导的思考。

就本人来看，目前市面上没有很好的新G作文书。大部分作文书及培训机构都认为ETS换汤不换药，考生只需灵活变通即可。我认为，新G写作最大的区别在于不同的写作指导。备考阶段，我在gter的G作文版发了很多帖子，也和不少同仁讨论过。这里我想和大家分享一下我对argument写作指导的一些看法，欢迎交流。

---

原文发在gter的G作文版，链接如下：
http://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-1475260-1-1.html  《Argument的写作要求应该遵守到何种程度？》
http://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-1481123-1-1.html  《【argument写作指导】evidence类》

许多人说，这四种写作要求其实没多大区别，只要稍微改改就可以，这么想是非常危险的。

举例说，OG里的一篇范文（Dr.Karp/evidence）很好地反映出了遵守写作要求对分数的影响。

从内容上看，这篇作文的3-6分范文全部都指出了主要的逻辑漏洞，但是区别就在于，高分都是非常详细地说出了具体的evidence，而且非常详细地指出了哪些evidence会加强/削弱论断。

从作文结构框架上看，更有范文是直接以evidence作为topic sentence统领全文，可见遵守写作指导有多么重要！

所以，各位写argument的时候，千万不要仅仅指出逻辑错误，然后给点别的解释就完了。不管是assumption，question还是evidence，一定要指出：
（1）一旦假设不成立会如何如何
（2）问题的回答是A将如何如何，回答是B又如何如何
（3）这些证据到底会加强还是削弱论断？具体怎么加强削弱的？

由此可见，argument的篇幅都是从上面这几点来的。光指出逻辑错误，举两个反例，ETS绝对会用superficial形容你。

另外，再提醒大家一点，也就是我之前询问过的：

题库中有9道alternative explanation题（出生顺序、人造黄油、两栖动物减少等等），不要根据逐个逻辑错误分开解释，要给出一个完整的解释，一次性解释所有现象！

---

【argu写作指导】evidence类

之前在别人的帖子里发表过一些对新G写作指导的个人看法，但很多人还是没有意识到这个问题。所以我打算以此贴强调，就以evidence为例。

不说别的，先上范文：

. Χ

It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article
that children in Tertia actually are raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even,
by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is
not as valid as an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this
argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. The argument
could end up being much weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid. In
order to make that determination, we need to know more then analyze what we learn.

The first piece of evidence that we would need in order to evaluate Dr. Karp’s claims
is information about whether or not Tertia and the surrounding island group have
changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study
20 years ago, and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For
example, if we had evidence that in teh intervening years Westerners had settled on
the island and they introduced a more typical Western-style family structure, it would
certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been
accurate, and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct, as well, though his conclusion that Dr.
Field’s method is ineffective would be seriously weakened.

Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves the exact
locations where Dr. Karp’s interviews took place. According to this article, Dr. Karp and
his graduate students conducted interviews of “children living in the group of islands
that includes Tertia.” If we were to learn that they never interviewed a single Tertian
child, it would significantly weaken the conclusion. It could turn out to be the case, for
example, that children on Tertia are raised communally, whereas children on other
islands nearby are raised by their biological parents.

In order to fully evaluate this article, we would also need to learn more about the
interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used. What exactly did they ask? We don’t
know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say
about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about
their biological parents than they do about other adults does not meant hat they are
raised by their biological parents. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument
if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or
how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing WHAT
the children said, it is hard to accept Dr. Karp’s conclusion.

It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to
evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the
results of his study to a conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently
more valid than observational-centered approaches. In order to fully evaluate this
claim, in fact, we would need to look at many more examples of interview-based and
observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into
different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational
study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such
grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs a lot of additional evidence (ideally a meta -
analysis of hundreds of anthropological studies).

Clearly, then, we need to have additional evidence in order to get a more complete
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Karp’s article. We need to know
about Tertia and the surrounding islands, whether or not they have changed over the
past 20 years. We also need to know about study design (Dr. Karp’s and Dr. Field’s).
And we really need a lot more information if we want to extend the results of a study
about one island culture to all anthropological fieldwork.

相信看过OG的人，应该都知道这篇Dr. Karp的6分范文。也许你没时间看了， 那么至少，请你看一下我用红色字体标出的部分，体会一下，什么叫evidence统领全文。

同志们！该从老G北美范文的梦里醒过来了！这玩意儿根本不是一回事啊！

evidence的写作指导赫然写着：

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

首先，要说明需要哪些具体的证据。所谓具体，可以说是越具体越好。比如你可以说：
（1）我需要一份对居民的调查
（2）我需要知道交通事故的地点，起因
（3）作者应该告诉我们，前5年的销售额如何
有时候，举evidence是需要创造力的，不是随便挑一挑逻辑错误就可以。

其次，最重要的部分，是说明这些证据会如何加强或削弱原论断，比如：

假如前5年的销售额都比现在高，那么论者的假设恐怕是站不住脚的。相反，如果不是这样，那么论者的说法就被有效支持了。

注意，所谓加强和削弱，不是简单地说if XXX, then weaken; otherwise, strengthen，而是非常具体地把其中的逻辑关系说出来，到底怎么加强和削弱了。

说真的，我不知道为什么那么多培训机构都对写作指导持有那么轻蔑的态度。ETS恶心人的能力从来是只增不减的，那么多道重复的题目，你以为是ETS吃干饭了吗？迄今为止，都没有一本参考书对argu的四种写作指导好好研究过。我希望这个帖子能引起各位的足够重视，也希望有人能能针对不同的写作指导，制定新G的写作提纲。

---

P.S. 这是我以前写的两篇帖子，有点懒，直接转过来了，希望能给各位一些启发。准备AW对我来说是很难忘，也很有意义的一段经历，因为这段时间里我真正学会了独立思考和批判性思维（不只针对作文题，也针对目前参考书的各种说辞）。以上观点当然只是我的一家之言，但我相信，如果各位能针对不同的写作指导，分别提出相应的对策，一定是百利而无一害的。

用心写的，发自肺腑的感言呀；谢谢

通过搜索找到的这个帖子，很认同作者观点。
写作指导的重要性在argument和issue中同样重要，刚刚看了一篇针对issue的6类写作指导的分析，如果同一个题目6类写作指导会是完全不同的写作方式，我想这也是为什么那么多人作文只停留在3分3.5分而一直没有突破的原因。
想一想也确实，官方题库里那么多重复的题目（不同的写作指导）是有它的道理的。