GMAT资料shmilyqiqiAA作文模版

shmilyqiqi的AATip：我用的是800分大牛tonyadidas的AA模版，但依据实质经验，对各段稍作精简（把拗口的一些词、句式去掉），再排了序（挑出常考到的高频原因）。2.AA无需它法，只需把这些原因背熟！我复习AWA时间极少，但这些原因到此刻还可以信口开河，靠平常上下班路上面想边背、反频频复背。画线处为经典的段首、尾句式，请务必背熟、灵巧运用！由于各段内容能够现编，也经常编的是空话频频说，但有了这样美丽的段首、尾来保障构造，就安全多了。特别经典的开头、结尾――看完题目就开始直接打这两段，边打边想原因！（经典）开头段模板Theconclusionendorsedinthisargumentisthat.Severalreasonsareofferedinsupportofthisargument.Firstofall,theauthorpointsoutthat.Inaddition,theauthorreasonsthat(What’smore,healsoassumesthat)Atfirstglance,theauthor’sargumentappearstobesomewhatconvincing,butfurtherreflectionrevealsthattheconclusionisbasedonsomedubiousassumptionsandthereasoningisbiasedduetotheinadequacyandpartialityinthenatureofevidenceprovidedtojustifytheconclusion.Acarefulexaminationwouldreviewhowgroundlessthisconclusionis.（经典）结尾段模板Toconclude,thisargumentisnotpersuasiveasitstands.Accordingly,itisimprudentfortheauthortoclaimthat.Tomakethisargumentlogicallyacceptable,theauthorwouldhavetoshowthat.Inaddition,tosolidifytheconclusion,theauthorshouldprovideconcreteevidenceaswelltodemonstratethat.Onlywithmoreconvincingevidencecouldthisargumentbecomemorethanjustanemotionalappeal.（结尾中复述的原因就copy/paste开头中的原因）高频原因（按频次由高到低摆列）时序性因果攻击Firstly,theauthorisengagedin‘afterthis,therefore,becauseofthis’reasoning.ThelineofreasoningisthatbecauseAhappenedbeforeB,theformercausedthelatter.However,thisreasoningisfallaciousunlessotherpossiblecausalfactorshavebeenconsideredandruledout.Forexample,perhapsC.Asaresult,anydecisionaimedataddressingtheproblemofBmustbebasedonamorethoroughinvestigationtogatherdatainordertonarrowdownandlocatetheactualcauseofB.同时性因果攻击Secondly,theauthor’ssolutionrestsontheassumptionthatAisthecauseofBjustbecauseAcoincidedwithB.However,amerepositionalcorrelationdoesnotnecessarilyproveacausalrelationship.Inaddition,allotherprospectivecausesofB,suchasCandD,mustberuledout.WithoutdetailedanalysisoftherealsourceofB,itwouldbegroundlesstoattributeBtoA.错误类比攻击Additionally,itishighlydoubtfulthatstrategiesdrawnfromAareapplicabletoB.However,differencesbetweenthesetwoclearlyoutweighthesimilarities,thereforemakingtheanalogymuchlessvalid.Forexample,CandDallaffectAbutvirtuallyabsentinB.Accordingly,wecanseethatAandBaresodissimilarthatBisunlikelytoexperiencethesameconsequenceifitadoptsA’sstrategies.非此即彼攻击Lastbutnotleast,theauthorunfairlyassumesthatareadermustmakeaeither-orchoice.However,theargumentfailstoruleoutpossibilitythatadjustingAandBmightproducebetterresults.Moreover,iftheauthoriswrongintheassumptionthatAandBaretheonlycausesoftheproblem,thusthemosteffectivesolutionmightincludeacomplexofotherfactors—suchasCandD.Inanyevent,theauthorprovidesnojustificationforthemutuallyexclusivechoiceimposedonthereader.必需性攻击Inthefirstplace,theauthorunfairlyassumesthatBwasdeterminedsolelybyA.WhileAisaseeminglyimportantelementindeterminingB,itishardlytheonlyorevennecessarilyrequiredelement.ThisassumptionoverlooksothercrucialcriteriaindeterminingB—suchasC,D.Withoutaccountingforthesepotentialfactors,theauthorconcludestoohastilythatisthebestwaytoachievegoals.充分性攻击Inthesecondplace,theauthor’ssolutionrestsontheassumptionthatAissufficienttogivebirthtothedesiredgoals.However,ifitturnsoutthatBisduetoacombinationoffactors,someofwhichwillremainunchangedinthefuture,suchasCandD,onlyAmighthavenoimpactonB.选择性样本攻击Athresholdproblemisthattheauthorprovidesnoevidencetoclaimthatthegeneralgroupasawholeisofthesamecharacteristic.Theexamplecited,whilesuggestiveofthistrend,isinsufficienttowarrantthatthesampleisrepresentativeofthewholegroup.Forexample,IquestionthatTherefore,suchevidencewouldbeobviouslyunrepresentative.Infact,infaceofsuchlimitedevidence,itisfallaciousfortheauthortodrawanyconclusionatall.(与“选择性样本攻击”较近似)样本代表性攻击Moreover,apossiblemethodologyproblemintheargumentisthatitisofbias.Theterm‘somany’istoovaguetobestatisticallymeaningful.Itisverypossiblethatworkerswhoweremoreinterestedinthesurveymightbelikelytorespondtothequestionnaire.Lackingintheinformationaboutthenumberofworkerssurveyedandthenumberofrespondents,itisimpossibletoassessthevalidityofthesurvey.Forinstance,if1000workersweresurveyedbutonly10responded,theresultshouldbehighlysuspect.Becausetheauthorfailstoaccountforotherinterpretations,thesurveywouldbeuselessinconcludingthat.其余原因忽视他因攻击Thirdly,theauthorhasfocusedonlyonA.Amoredetailedanalysiswouldrevealthatotherfactorsfaroutweighthefactoronwhichtheauthorfocuses.Forexample,C.Lackingamorecomprehensiveanalysisofthecauses,itispresumptuousfortheauthortoclaimthatAsolelydeterminedB.因果倒置攻击Atlast,itispossiblethattheauthorhasconfusedcausewitheffect.PerhapsAwasaresponsetoB.Sincetheauthorfailstoaccountforthispossibility,theclaimthatiscompletelyunwarranted.样本数目攻击Anotherproblemthatseriouslyweakensthelogicofthisargumentisthatthesurveycitedisbasedontoosmallasampletobereliable.Offeredinsupportoftheargument,theonlyevidenceisthat.Unlessitcanbeshownthatthesampleistypicalofallgeneralgroup,thefactthatisgroundlesstoclaimthatLoadedquestion和诚实性攻击What’smore,themethodologyofthesurveyisproblematicfortworeasons.Foronething,wearenotinformedwhetherthesurveyprovidedonly3alternatives.Ifitdid,therespondents,whomightverywellpreferanotherchoicenotprovidedinthesurvey,mightbeforcedtogiveuptheirpreferences.Foranotherthing,wearenotinformedwhetherthesurveyresponseswereanonymousorconfidential.Therespondentsmightsupplyresponsesfavoredbytheirsuperiorswhomightconductthesurvey.Botheventswouldleadthissurveyunreliable,letalonedrawtheconclusionthat样本时效性攻击Lastbutnotleast,anotherflawthatsignificantlyunderminesthisargumentisthattheauthorneglectstoindicatehowrecentlythesurveywasactuallyconducted.Whenusedtogenerallyclaimaparticulargroup,thesamplesshouldbecloseenoughtosupportthegeneralization,inordertopreventhistoricalchangesfrominvalidatingthegeneralization.Allweknowisthatthesurveyisrecentlypublished.Thelessrecentthesurveyitself,thelessreliabletheresultstodemonstratethat差别观点攻击Tobeginwith,wemustestablishthemeaningofthevagueconceptA.IfthetermweresynonymouswithB,theevidencecitedwouldstronglysupporttheargument.However,AmaybedefinedinothertermssuchasCandD.Accordingly,theauthorhasdrawntheconclusiontoohastilyduetotheignoranceofotherdefinitionsofA.范围内推攻击What’smore,themostegregiousreasoningerrorinthisargumentisthattheauthorusesevidencepertainingtoageneralgrouponthebasisofaparticularB.Evenifthereasoningmaybesoundingeneralsense,theparticularsituationinwhichBisinvolvedmaynotberepresentativeoftheentiregeneralgroup.Itispossiblethat...Ifthisisthecase,theclaimthatisillfounded.不随时变攻击Moreover,theauthorunfairlyassumesthatAwillremainunchangedoverthenextdecades.However,amererecentone-yearAisinsufficienttoclaimthat.Statisticsfromsuchlimitedanecdotalevidenceisnotagoodindicatorforthistrend.Inaddition,itispossiblethatinthefuture,thistrendwouldgreatlyfluctuateorevenreverse,thentheadoptionoftheauthor’sproposalmightgivebirthtoB,however,itmightalsohaveanegativeimpactonC1and,inturns,C2.Admittedly,thisargumentwouldbeevenweakerandweakereachdayastimegoesby.Theauthorconcludesinthisargumentthatingeneral,peoplearenotasconcernedastheywereadecadeagoaboutregulatingtheirintakeofredmeatandfattycheeses.Severalreasonsareofferedinsupportsoftheconclusion.Firstofall,theauthorpointsoutthat,astorethatstartedsellingorganicfruitsandvegetablesandwhole-grainfloursinthe1960'salsoofferawideselectionofcheesesmadewithhighbutterfatcontent.Inaddition,healsopointsoutthattheownersofanoldvegetarianrestaurantarestillmakingamodestliving,whiletheownersofthenewHouseofBeefacrossthestreetaremillionaires.Theargumentisunconvicingforseveralreasons.Inthefirstplace,theauthordepentonthegratuitousassumptionthatfindawideselectionofcheesesmadewithhignbutterfatcontentinastorethatstartedsellingorganicfruitsandvegetablesandwhole-grainfloursissufficienttodrawtheconclusion.However,noevidenceisstatedintheargumenttosupportthisconclusion.Infact,itisnotnecessarilythecase.Forexample,awideselectionofcheesesjustsuggestthatthestoreapplythem,butdoesnotmeanthatmanypeoplewillbuythecheeses.Itispossiblethatthestorefailstotakeintoaccounttheconsumersdemandandjustsuppliesthegoodsthatfewpeoplewouldbuy.Withoutprovingthatmanypeoplewouldbuythecheeses,theauthorconcludestohastlythatpeoplearenotasconcernedastheywereadevadeagoaboutregulatingtheirintakeofredmeatandfattycheese.Inthesecondplace,theauthorunfairlyassumesthatthefactthattheownersoftheGoodEarthCafearestillmakingamodestlivingwhiletheownersofthenewHouseofBeefacrossthestreetaremillionairessuggerstthatmorepeopleengoyredmeatandfattycheesesnow.However,theasumptionisfaliciousbecausetheauthorfailstoprovidemoreconcreteinformationaboutthetworestaurant'sowners.Forexample,itispossiblethattheownersofthenewHouseofBeefhadbeenmillionairesbeforetheyopenedtherestaurant,thusmakingtheassumptionmuchlessvalid.Tosumup,theargumentisnotconvicingasitstands.Accordinglly,itisimprudentfortheauthortoconcusionthatingeneral,peoplearenotasconcernedastheywereadecadeagoaboutregulatingtheirintakeofredmeatandfattycheeses.Tomakethisargumentlogicallyacceptable,theauthorshouldhavetopointoutthatmanypeoplewillbuythecheesessuppliedbythestore.Tosolidifytheconclusion,heshouldbaseonamoreconcreteevedencetodemonstratethatmorepeopleengoyredmeatandfattycheesesnow.Whichisabetterwaytoevaluatejobcandidates--Theemployerssholdusethetraditionalquestion-and-answerinterviewsorshouldobservecandidatesastheyperformsomeofthejob'sactualtasks?Tosomeextent,Iagreewiththeauthor'sassetionthatemplyersshouldobservecandidatesastheyperformsomeofthejob'sactualtasks.However,theauthorunnecessarilyextendsthebroadassertiontoanirreversibleextremewhileoverlooksotherimportantfactorsthatmayaffecttheissue.Mypointsofagreementandcontentionwiththeauthorinvolvethedeepandbasicdiscussionasfollow.Ontheonehand,themostconvincingreaconsupportingtheauthor'sassertionisthatobservingcandidatesastheyperformsomeofthejob'sactualtaskcanobtainamoreconcreteinformationaboutwhetherthecandidatesaresuitableforthejob.Moreover,thetraditonalquestion-and-answerinterviewssometimesaretoosubjective.Forexample,theemployermaybeaffectedbythecandidatesbehavior,suits,andsoon.What'smore,somecandidateswithhighlyknowledgearesometimesverynervousintheinterview,thusperformingverypoorintheinterview.Therefore,itissagacioustoadmitthat,theauthor'sassertion,althoughsuffersfromsomedrawbacks,hassomemeritsprimarilybecausethe