孫遠(yuǎn)--GMAT作文--講義


頁(yè)數(shù)：21 字?jǐn)?shù)：9793

孫遠(yuǎn)--GMAT作文--講義
一、考試指南
GMAT作文考兩篇作文，一篇是一個(gè)是非問(wèn)題分析（Analysis of an Issue）; 另一篇作文是一個(gè)邏輯問(wèn)題分析（Analysis of an Argument）。兩篇作文各考30分鐘，加起來(lái)共一個(gè)小時(shí)。簡(jiǎn)單地說(shuō)，第一篇作文是立論，第二篇作文是駁論。

1. 邏輯問(wèn)題分析例文
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. 是非問(wèn)題分析例文
“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作文題庫(kù)是怎么回事

GMAT作文的評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

GMAT作文如何閱卷和評(píng)分

二、課程安排
1. 教學(xué)內(nèi)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. 教學(xué)方法
(1)案例分析
邏輯分析(4個(gè))
是非分析(4個(gè))
(2)作文的結(jié)構(gòu)和模式
(3)論證方法
(4)語(yǔ)言問(wèn)題
Part One
三、邏輯問(wèn)題例文分析
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)
------------------------------------------------第一課時(shí)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