GRE作文考试Argument第一篇的分析

时间:浏览:6
GRE网发布GRE作文考试Argument第一篇的分析  ,更多GRE作文考试Argument第一篇的分析相关信息请访问中国考试网GRE留学外语考试频道  。

The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper.

  "Seatown has a large port exclusively for fishing boats, whose owners pay fees for the upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets. In recent years, declining fish populations have decreased fishing revenue and forced many owners to stop fishing altogether. As a result, the port






has a high vacancy rate and port managers are considering allowing pleasure boats, including cruise ships and other large vessels, to use the port in order to increase revenue. But allowing pleasure boats into the port would be a mistake, because the fishing boats would be forced out of the port. we should preserve the port for the fishing fleet, which, unlike pleasure boats, contributes to the prosperity of Seatown."

  这条我觉得它前面论述的很好啊  ,我还以为它要我论述改成游轮码头不好呢  。谁知他自己先说了  ,我真是没折了……

  我们来看看他的逻辑假设:

  我的翻译:以前这里只是一个只允许鱼船停靠的港口 ,而且船主要交纳管理费 ,清洁费等  。最近几年  ,鱼数量的减少影响渔业税收以及同时进行扑鱼的船主数量  。由此导致的结果就是港口的空船位比率的增加  。因此 ,有些管理人员就提出可以让一些pleasure boats--- cruise ships & other large vessles---进港以提高税收  。但如果让一些PLEASURE BOATS进港的话就会把鱼船挤到港口外去  。所以  ,我们应该为鱼船舰队保留港位 ,因为这些舰队可以为SEATOWN的繁荣做出贡献 ,但pleasure boats则不可  。

  所以你看出来了  ,这里直接就是有一个问题在说话人的结论里面:鱼船舰队可以为繁荣做贡献但是pleasure boats则不可以  ,但是他却没有提出具体的根据/理论来支持  。而在他的陈述过程中提出的所谓pleasure boats会把鱼船forced out of the port也是没有根据来支持的  。所以我们就可以从这两点为主来conquer it.

  比如我们可以提出一些假设  ,设想这个港口的一般的扑鱼期是在冬天 ,因为这里的鱼都是冬天产卵的 ,而一些pleasure boats选择的停靠期是在春天  ,夏天还有秋天  。所以我们就可以通过时间上的安排来防止fishing boats forced to be out of the port这种情况的发生 。再比如  ,如果经过详细的调查和论证  ,在这个seatown鱼数量的下降是不可恢复性的 ,就是说这个城市或者港口的主要职责应该发生转变  。如果允许pleasure boats进港对税收以及社会的贡献和促进远远大于来自与fishing行业的话 ,这个argument的逻辑也是不完全正确的  。

  然后就是这个港口容量的问题  。可以从港口容量已经不能适应逐渐增长的船只停靠率来说也  。还有这个港口管理方式以及收入增长点的问题  ,是不是还有其他的方式—--多于传统的只是靠收取管理费用/税收----来增加收入等等  。

  总而言之  ,这个题目的主要问题就是在于考虑问题的不全面性以及缺乏有利证据上  。

  by gteryy

  In this argument, the arguer concluded that the docks should be kept for fishing boats in spite of some port managers' consideration of allowing pleasure boats, cruise ships and other large vessels to use it, basing on the explanation that in this case fishing boats, which contribute to the prosperity, will be forced out of the port. Though seemed to be a sound argument, it is in fact a weakly supported one.

  In the first place, the arguer presumptuously make the assert that allowing other boats to use the port will definitely results in forcing the fishing boats out. Without enough evidence to show the certain conflict between these two usages, we cannot accept it. Actually, if the golden time for fishing is in summer, for example, it is quite possible that using the port for pleasure boats will be a effective way for increasing revenue.

  Moreover, the arguer fails to take into account the factors like capacity of the port which may be a large one and consequently be able to accommodate both fishing boats and other boats. Therefore, the arguer's conclusion that either fishing boats or other boats are able to use the port exclusively is unwarranted.

  Secondly, we are still suffering from lack of information to be convinced that fishing boats will by all means be more profitable than other boats, notwithstanding the high vacancy rate recently. Although fishing boats once to contribute much to the prosperity of the town, it is unwise to stick on supporting it when it is declining. It is possible that other boats may not attribute as much revenue as fishing boats do, but probably they do not cost that much too. We have to spend quite a few money on the upkeep of the docks and facilities, for repairing the nets and cleaning the engines etc.

  while other boats may not abrade the dock so quickly, and do not need to be repaired so frequently, thus cost fewer money for upkeep. Even if they cost the same, it is better to receive a small amount than receive nothing, since the port is always in a vacant situation.

  To sum up, the arguer has a good wish to utilize the port for more profit for his/her town, however, he/she fails to convince us to keep the port for those fishing boats rather than use it for someone else by lacking of evidence and consideration. Hence, he could be accept the suggestion to convert the usage of the port or more thoughtfully think out another way to increase revenue.

  (by angeikim)