1、GRE（ ANALYTICAL WRITING）模拟试卷 4及答案与解析 一、 Analyze an Issue 1 As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posi
2、tion you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. 二、 Analyze an Argument 2 The following appeared in a health magazine published in Corpora. “Medical expert
3、s say that only one-quarter of Corporas citizens meet the current standards for adequate physical fitness, even though twenty years ago, one-half of all of Corporas citizens met the standards as then defined. But these experts are mistaken when they suggest that spending too much time using computer
4、s has caused a decline in fitness. Since overall fitness levels are highest in regions of Corpora where levels of computer ownership are also highest, it is clear that using computers has not made citizens less physically fit. Instead, as shown by this years unusually low expenditures on fitness-rel
5、ated products and services, the recent decline in the economy is most likely the cause, and fitness levels will improve when the economy does.“ Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptio
6、ns and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted. GRE（ ANALYTICAL WRITING）模拟试卷 4答案与解析 一、 Analyze an Issue 1 【正确答案】 The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no tim
7、e in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the
8、 employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurences would have been inconceivable at th
9、e turn of the 19th century. The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back
10、at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing, and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete. However, this reliance on
11、 technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species.The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer, and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently.This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans t
12、o think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy dema
13、nds from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems
14、require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians. In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popula
15、r internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most
16、surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe. This last example p
17、rovides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since p
18、rehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated. Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of
19、fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that tec
20、hnology provides for new avenues of human imagination. 【试题解析】 In this task, you are asked to discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Thus, responses may range from strong agreement or strong disagreement, to qualified agreement or qualified disagreement. You are also in
21、structed to explain your reasoning and consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true. A successful response need not comment on all or any one of the points listed below and may well discuss other reasons or examples not mentioned here in support of its position. Although this to
22、pic is accessible to respondents of all levels of ability, for any response to receive a top score, it is particularly important that you remain focused on the task and provide clearly relevant examples and/or reasons to support the point of view you are expressing. Lower level responses may be long
23、 and full of examples of modern technology, but those examples may not be clearly related to a particular position. For example, a respondent who strongly disagrees with the statement may choose to use computer technology as proof that thinking ability is not deteriorating. The mere existence of com
24、puter technology, however, does not adequately prove this point(perhaps the ease of computer use inhibits our thinking ability). To receive a higher-level score, the respondent should explain in what ways computer technology may call for or require thinking ability. This topic could elicit a wide va
25、riety of approaches, especially considering the different possible interpretations of the phrase “the ability of humans to think for themselves.“ Although most respondents may take it to mean problem solving, others, with equal effectiveness, could interpret it as emotional and social intelligence(i
26、.e., the ability to communicate/connect with others). With any approach, it is possible to discuss examples such as calculators, word processing tools such as spell and grammar check, tax return software, Internet research, and a variety of other common household and business technologies. You may a
27、gree with the prompt and argue that: reliance on technology leads to dependency; we come to rely on problem-solving technologies to such a degree that when they fail, we are in worse shape than if we did not have them in the first place everyday technologies such as calculators and cash registers ha
28、ve decreased our ability to perform simple calculations, a “use it or lose it“ approach to thinking ability Or you may take issue with the prompt and argue that technology facilitates and improves our thinking skills, arguing that: developing, implementing, and using technology requires problem solv
29、ing technology frees us from mundane problem solving(e.g., calculations)and allows us to engage in more complex thinking technology provides access to information otherwise unavailable technology connects people at a distance and allows them to share ideas technology is dependent on the human abilit
30、y to think and make choices(every implementation of and advance in technology is driven by human intelligence and decision making) On the other hand, you could decide to explore the middle ground in the debate and point out that while technology may diminish some mental skill sets, it enables other(
31、perhaps more important)types of thinking to thrive. Such a response might distinguish between complex problem solving and simple “data maintenance“(i.e., performing calculations and organizing information). Other approaches could include taking a historical, philosophical, or sociological stance, or
32、, with equal effectiveness, using personal examples to illustrate a position. One could argue that the value or detriment of relying on technology is determined by the individual(or society)using it or that only those who develop technology(i.e., technical specialists)are maintaining their problem-s
33、olving skills, while the rest of us are losing them. Again, it is important for you to avoid overly general examples, or lists of examples without expansion. It is also essential to do more than paraphrase the prompt. Please keep in mind that what counts is the ability to clearly express a particula
34、r point of view in relation to the issue and specific task instructions and to support that position with relevant reasons and/or examples. 二、 Analyze an Argument 2 【正确答案】 The magazine article concerns itself with a common worry in this day and age: health. It makes an intriguing connection, that of
35、 fitness and economic status, but engages it too many clear logical fallacies and fails to present enough factual evidence to be a truly compelling argument. The article itself is discussing the fitness level of Corporas citizens, saying that half as many citizens meet the health standards today as
36、did twenty years ago; standing alone, it is persuasive evidence that helps the articles argument. It is the articles own words that undercuts its efficacy. By clarifying that there are “current standards“ and “standards as then defined,“the writer questions his or her own connection without acknowle
37、dging the possible repercussions of that change, thereby assuming that the standards are similar enough for the difference to remain relevant. If that assumption is incorrect, that is, if the standards twenty years ago are drastically different than those today, it is possible that there has been no
38、 change in the citizensfitness at all. It could just be that fitness standards have become more exacting and the citizens are failing to measure up the way they did before, under the more accepting fitness standards. If this were true, the articles entire purpose would be undermined. There would be
39、no change in fitness levels at all, and therefore no cause for concern. This is a major flaw in the argument and should be at least acknowledged by the author, perhaps improved upon by defining the fitness standards, in order to improve the argument as a whole. The author of this article also makes
40、a tragic assumption by supposing a correlation between high rates of computer ownership and computer usage. The author argues that areas with high computer ownership are also highly fit, and therefore computer usage cannot result in lower fitness. That statement relies on the assumption that a home
41、has multiple computers because the people in that home are using the computer. It is entirely possible that those homes are the wealthiest homes and own multiple computers, but no one in the home uses the computer. Similarly, someone in a poor neighborhood could not own a computer at all but still u
42、se a computer for a great portion of their day at a job and/or library. High ownership rates do not necessarily correlate to usage, and therefore the author cannot logically argue that the relationship between ownership and fitness automatically precludes a correlation between usage and fitness. The
43、 above assumption has even deeper implications. As discussed, the homes with high ownership rates could very well, and even most likely, be the wealthiest homes in Corpora; therefore, the homes with the lowest rates could be the most poverty-stricken. Consequently, the high fitness levels in the hig
44、h ownership areas may have nothing to do with their computer usage, for which we have no data, or their computer ownership, which we have no proof they own, but everything to do with their wealth and subsequent access to private trainers and gyms. If this were true, it could help strengthen the conc
45、lusion of the articles original argument by taking it on a slightly different, albeit still economy-concerned, course. It would nonetheless render the entire articles actual argument false and therefore pointless. As evidenced, the article engages in three major assumptions, both stated and understa
46、ted, which do a great deal of work in the authors argument as a whole. That is, if the assumptions prove true. The reasoning relies on data that isnt provided and correlations that may not necessarily exist. For that reason, the article fails to successfully defend its conclusion. If just one of the
47、se assumptions were to prove wrong, the entire point of the article would be thrown into question, and it is entirely possible that all three assumptions could be wrong. The author would have to get a great deal more data and add lengthy explanations of the standards upon which the article relies be
48、fore the article could have any hope of standing successfully on its own. 【试题解析】 This outstanding response clearly addresses the specific task directions and presents a cogent, insightful analysis by specifically detailing the erroneous assumptions of the argument and what the implications of those
49、assumptions are on the argument. For example, the writer points out that the arguments author accepts the different health standards “without acknowledging the possible repercussions of that changeover time, thereby assuming that the standards are similar enough for the difference to remain relevant. If that assumption is incorrect, that is, if the standards twenty years ago are drastically different than those today, it is possible that there has been no change in the citizens fitness at all. If this were true, the articles entire purpose would be undermined.“ Similarly, the w
