GRE Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析

　　The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper

　　Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant.

　　Sample Essay

　　The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

　　First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.

　　In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

　　Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

　　Finally, the letter writer refers to the negligence and wastefulness of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the authors argument.

　　In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridges damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durants decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the authors point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

　　下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市報(bào)》的信函：前市長(zhǎng)Durant應(yīng)向全體Atticus 市民道歉。無(wú)論是將Atticus 市和Hartley市連結(jié)起來(lái)的跨河大橋所遭到的毀壞，還是我們?cè)诖髽蛏祥L(zhǎng)期以來(lái)所經(jīng)歷的交通問(wèn)題，實(shí)際上都是由Durant 市長(zhǎng)在20年之前一手鑄成的。無(wú)論如何，是他批準(zhǔn)了大橋的開(kāi)工建設(shè)。如果他所批準(zhǔn)建設(shè)的大橋更寬一些，設(shè)計(jì)得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款項(xiàng)大致相等的話，那么，無(wú)論是大橋的受損，還是交通擁堵問(wèn)題均不會(huì)發(fā)生。然則，在過(guò)去20年期間，跨河大橋現(xiàn)在則遠(yuǎn)比上游河段上長(zhǎng)度遠(yuǎn)長(zhǎng)得多的Derby河大橋更為快速地遭到毀損。盡管過(guò)去幾年中冬天的日子甚為嚴(yán)酷，但我們絕不能原諒Durant 市長(zhǎng)的玩忽職守和浪費(fèi)。

　　本信函的作者在其論述中得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為前市長(zhǎng)Durant 應(yīng)向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因?yàn)閷?duì)于過(guò)去20年中跨河大橋所遭受的損壞他應(yīng)引咎自責(zé)。作者亦責(zé)怪Durant市長(zhǎng)造成了大橋上長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的交通問(wèn)題。作者陳述道，由于Durant市長(zhǎng)批準(zhǔn)了現(xiàn)在這座大橋的開(kāi)工建設(shè)，而沒(méi)有批準(zhǔn)一座更寬、設(shè)計(jì)更精良的大橋，故他在20年之前實(shí)際上就已鑄成了上述這些問(wèn)題。提出這些論點(diǎn)的作者可以對(duì)Durant市長(zhǎng)有此個(gè)人怨仇，但論述中所陳述的各項(xiàng)內(nèi)容并不能為這樣一種責(zé)怪提供依據(jù)。

　　首先，作者斬釘截鐵地將罪責(zé)歸咎于Durant市長(zhǎng)，僅僅因?yàn)樗鷾?zhǔn)了大橋的建造這一行為本身。但作者沒(méi)能提供證據(jù)證明，僅僅只是批準(zhǔn)該座大橋的建造這一行為與大橋本身所遭受的毀壞或大橋上的交通問(wèn)題有任何必然的聯(lián)系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生僅僅只是準(zhǔn)許了建造這座大橋的想法，而并沒(méi)有認(rèn)可該大橋的設(shè)計(jì)或建造該大橋的承包商。純粹去批準(zhǔn)大橋的建造，這一行為就其本身而言并不會(huì)導(dǎo)致大橋受毀或造成任何交通問(wèn)題。

　　此外，論述者得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為如果Durant市長(zhǎng)批準(zhǔn)建造一座更寬、設(shè)計(jì)更精良的大橋的話，則既不會(huì)發(fā)生大橋受損，也不會(huì)有交通擁堵的問(wèn)題。對(duì)于該論據(jù)，論述者也沒(méi)有提出任何證明依據(jù)。一個(gè)眾所周知的事實(shí)是，所有橋梁的狀況都會(huì)每況愈下，尤其是經(jīng)歷了20年這樣長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間之后，無(wú)論它們當(dāng)時(shí)設(shè)計(jì)得是如何精良。信函作者也沒(méi)能提供任何能起到支持作用的證據(jù)來(lái)證明，人們可以用大致同等數(shù)量的公共款項(xiàng)建起一座更為持久的、交通問(wèn)題更少的大橋。有可能的是，一座橋面更寬的大橋所遭受的損壞可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的資金將更大，無(wú)論所使用的是公共款項(xiàng)還是私人資金。

　　再者，論述者提到跨河大橋比上游河段更長(zhǎng)的Derby大橋老化的速度來(lái)得快。這一毫無(wú)根據(jù)的論點(diǎn)沒(méi)能考慮到導(dǎo)致兩座大橋老化狀況差異的其他有可能的因素，如交通負(fù)荷、橋址、以及其他環(huán)境方面的變數(shù)。例如，Derby大橋受到了更好的保護(hù)，受自然因素影響較少，很少有重型卡車類的交通工具通過(guò)其上。除了其武斷的個(gè)人看法以外，信函作者沒(méi)有拿出任何依據(jù)來(lái)在兩座大橋之間作出直接的比較。

　　最后，信函作者提及Durant市長(zhǎng)的玩忽職守及浪費(fèi).該作者所援引的有關(guān)Durant市長(zhǎng)的唯一的所作所為僅是早先時(shí)候?qū)Υ髽蚪ㄔ斓呐鷾?zhǔn)，而這一點(diǎn)既不能證明任何的玩忽職守，也不能證明任何浪費(fèi)。該句子本身包含了一個(gè)不根據(jù)前提的推理首先討論過(guò)去幾年中氣候嚴(yán)酷的冬天，緊接著責(zé)怪Durant先生的浪費(fèi)與疏忽。在作者的論述中，這一譴責(zé)既無(wú)正當(dāng)理由，也缺乏依據(jù)。

　　概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫無(wú)根據(jù)的責(zé)怪，而沒(méi)有拿出任何真正的依據(jù)來(lái)證明其論點(diǎn)。要使其論點(diǎn)更具說(shuō)服力，該作者應(yīng)拿出證據(jù)來(lái)證明，Durant市長(zhǎng)所批準(zhǔn)的是一份有嚴(yán)重失誤的大橋建設(shè)設(shè)計(jì)方案，或一個(gè)沒(méi)有資質(zhì)的建筑公司，從而導(dǎo)致了大橋的受毀和交通問(wèn)題。該作者也應(yīng)該提供有支持作用的細(xì)節(jié)，以表明大橋受損程度超乎尋常，并且是因?yàn)镈urant市長(zhǎng)決定使用劣質(zhì)建筑材料或采用了一份蹩腳的設(shè)計(jì)方案而直接造成的。在沒(méi)有更為充分的依據(jù)這一條件下，該作者的論點(diǎn)無(wú)法令人置信，并且也顯得沒(méi)有得到充分的論證。

　　The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper

　　Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant.

　　Sample Essay

　　The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

　　First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.

　　In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

　　Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

　　Finally, the letter writer refers to the negligence and wastefulness of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the authors argument.

　　In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridges damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durants decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the authors point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

　　下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市報(bào)》的信函：前市長(zhǎng)Durant應(yīng)向全體Atticus 市民道歉。無(wú)論是將Atticus 市和Hartley市連結(jié)起來(lái)的跨河大橋所遭到的毀壞，還是我們?cè)诖髽蛏祥L(zhǎng)期以來(lái)所經(jīng)歷的交通問(wèn)題，實(shí)際上都是由Durant 市長(zhǎng)在20年之前一手鑄成的。無(wú)論如何，是他批準(zhǔn)了大橋的開(kāi)工建設(shè)。如果他所批準(zhǔn)建設(shè)的大橋更寬一些，設(shè)計(jì)得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款項(xiàng)大致相等的話，那么，無(wú)論是大橋的受損，還是交通擁堵問(wèn)題均不會(huì)發(fā)生。然則，在過(guò)去20年期間，跨河大橋現(xiàn)在則遠(yuǎn)比上游河段上長(zhǎng)度遠(yuǎn)長(zhǎng)得多的Derby河大橋更為快速地遭到毀損。盡管過(guò)去幾年中冬天的日子甚為嚴(yán)酷，但我們絕不能原諒Durant 市長(zhǎng)的玩忽職守和浪費(fèi)。

　　本信函的作者在其論述中得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為前市長(zhǎng)Durant 應(yīng)向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因?yàn)閷?duì)于過(guò)去20年中跨河大橋所遭受的損壞他應(yīng)引咎自責(zé)。作者亦責(zé)怪Durant市長(zhǎng)造成了大橋上長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的交通問(wèn)題。作者陳述道，由于Durant市長(zhǎng)批準(zhǔn)了現(xiàn)在這座大橋的開(kāi)工建設(shè)，而沒(méi)有批準(zhǔn)一座更寬、設(shè)計(jì)更精良的大橋，故他在20年之前實(shí)際上就已鑄成了上述這些問(wèn)題。提出這些論點(diǎn)的作者可以對(duì)Durant市長(zhǎng)有此個(gè)人怨仇，但論述中所陳述的各項(xiàng)內(nèi)容并不能為這樣一種責(zé)怪提供依據(jù)。

　　首先，作者斬釘截鐵地將罪責(zé)歸咎于Durant市長(zhǎng)，僅僅因?yàn)樗鷾?zhǔn)了大橋的建造這一行為本身。但作者沒(méi)能提供證據(jù)證明，僅僅只是批準(zhǔn)該座大橋的建造這一行為與大橋本身所遭受的毀壞或大橋上的交通問(wèn)題有任何必然的聯(lián)系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生僅僅只是準(zhǔn)許了建造這座大橋的想法，而并沒(méi)有認(rèn)可該大橋的設(shè)計(jì)或建造該大橋的承包商。純粹去批準(zhǔn)大橋的建造，這一行為就其本身而言并不會(huì)導(dǎo)致大橋受毀或造成任何交通問(wèn)題。

　　此外，論述者得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為如果Durant市長(zhǎng)批準(zhǔn)建造一座更寬、設(shè)計(jì)更精良的大橋的話，則既不會(huì)發(fā)生大橋受損，也不會(huì)有交通擁堵的問(wèn)題。對(duì)于該論據(jù)，論述者也沒(méi)有提出任何證明依據(jù)。一個(gè)眾所周知的事實(shí)是，所有橋梁的狀況都會(huì)每況愈下，尤其是經(jīng)歷了20年這樣長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間之后，無(wú)論它們當(dāng)時(shí)設(shè)計(jì)得是如何精良。信函作者也沒(méi)能提供任何能起到支持作用的證據(jù)來(lái)證明，人們可以用大致同等數(shù)量的公共款項(xiàng)建起一座更為持久的、交通問(wèn)題更少的大橋。有可能的是，一座橋面更寬的大橋所遭受的損壞可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的資金將更大，無(wú)論所使用的是公共款項(xiàng)還是私人資金。

　　再者，論述者提到跨河大橋比上游河段更長(zhǎng)的Derby大橋老化的速度來(lái)得快。這一毫無(wú)根據(jù)的論點(diǎn)沒(méi)能考慮到導(dǎo)致兩座大橋老化狀況差異的其他有可能的因素，如交通負(fù)荷、橋址、以及其他環(huán)境方面的變數(shù)。例如，Derby大橋受到了更好的保護(hù)，受自然因素影響較少，很少有重型卡車類的交通工具通過(guò)其上。除了其武斷的個(gè)人看法以外，信函作者沒(méi)有拿出任何依據(jù)來(lái)在兩座大橋之間作出直接的比較。

　　最后，信函作者提及Durant市長(zhǎng)的玩忽職守及浪費(fèi).該作者所援引的有關(guān)Durant市長(zhǎng)的唯一的所作所為僅是早先時(shí)候?qū)Υ髽蚪ㄔ斓呐鷾?zhǔn)，而這一點(diǎn)既不能證明任何的玩忽職守，也不能證明任何浪費(fèi)。該句子本身包含了一個(gè)不根據(jù)前提的推理首先討論過(guò)去幾年中氣候嚴(yán)酷的冬天，緊接著責(zé)怪Durant先生的浪費(fèi)與疏忽。在作者的論述中，這一譴責(zé)既無(wú)正當(dāng)理由，也缺乏依據(jù)。

　　概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫無(wú)根據(jù)的責(zé)怪，而沒(méi)有拿出任何真正的依據(jù)來(lái)證明其論點(diǎn)。要使其論點(diǎn)更具說(shuō)服力，該作者應(yīng)拿出證據(jù)來(lái)證明，Durant市長(zhǎng)所批準(zhǔn)的是一份有嚴(yán)重失誤的大橋建設(shè)設(shè)計(jì)方案，或一個(gè)沒(méi)有資質(zhì)的建筑公司，從而導(dǎo)致了大橋的受毀和交通問(wèn)題。該作者也應(yīng)該提供有支持作用的細(xì)節(jié)，以表明大橋受損程度超乎尋常，并且是因?yàn)镈urant市長(zhǎng)決定使用劣質(zhì)建筑材料或采用了一份蹩腳的設(shè)計(jì)方案而直接造成的。在沒(méi)有更為充分的依據(jù)這一條件下，該作者的論點(diǎn)無(wú)法令人置信，并且也顯得沒(méi)有得到充分的論證。