GMAT写作题库范文二十一

1、GMAT写作题库范文（二十一）写作是个厚积薄发的考试，同学们在备考GMAT写作时，不仅要多练习，也要去掌握一些重点语句。有些题库范文是需要大家掌握并且熟练记忆的，熟记于心才能运用自如，才能举一反三。接下来小编就给大家介绍一下GMAT写作范文，希望对大家备考GMAT写作考试有帮助。 21. The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter. “While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of high

2、way maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation

3、than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new

4、 lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.” Discuss how well reasoned. etc. 一份工业实事通讯的社论： 当运货汽车公司只支付部分高速公路保养费，不支付他们使用的公路的财产税就运送货物的时候，铁路每年花费数亿元用于维护和升级他们的设备。政府应该降低铁路公司的财产税，因为通过铁路运送货物和高速公路运送相比显然是一种更合适的陆运方式。运送相同的货物火车所用燃料相当于货运汽车的1/3这一点就使它成为更高效更符合环境需求的运输方式。进一步的，由于铁路线已经存在，铁路运输的增加不需要用纳税人的钱修建

5、新的线路。 The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes for railroad companies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by rail is cost-effective and e

6、nvironmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons. First of all, the argument depends upon a misleading comparison between railroad and truck company expenditures. Although trucking companies do not pay property tax on roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, w

7、arehouses and maintenance facilities they own. And while trucking companies pay only a portion of road maintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad companies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities and tracks; but they distr

8、ibute these costs to other users through usage fees. In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide incentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This assumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structure

9、d to reflect the value of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and environmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However, these are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be relevant in determining tax s

10、tructuring, but society does not compensate a business for its cost-efficiency. Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an ambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it may be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship fur

11、niture by rail because it is cost-effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage more railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business prude

12、nce on the other. In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and equivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: (1) the factors relevant to tax structure, (2) whether specific tax benefits should accrue to property as well as to income and capital gains taxes, (3) whether railway shipping really does provide greater social be