Arg-63

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily Newspaper:

"Throughout the country last year, as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth-league softball and soccer. Over 80,000 of these young players suffered injuries. When interviewed for a recent study, youth-league softball players in several major cities also reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents. Furthermore, education experts say that long practice sessions for these sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. Since the disadvantages apparently outweigh any advantages, we in Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine."

—————————————————————————————————————————

满分范文赏析

This letter concludes that Parkville should not allow children under age nine to participate in organized competitive sports because of the rate of injury, psychological pressure on children from adult organizers and the reduction in time available for academic pursuits.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E 的开头结构。概括原文的C(Conclusion)同时给出原文为了支持他的结论所引用的主要E(Evidence)。

【此段功能】

本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论：Parkville（简称P）地区不能让9岁以下儿童参与竞技体育活动。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：rate of injury, pschological pressure和academic time减少，论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。

One of the major problems with the argument is that it relies on the assumption that the nationwide statistics about the incidence of sports injuries among youngsters applies equally to Parkville's children—this might not be the case. Perhaps Parkville maintains more stringent safety standards than the national norm. Maybe children's sporting events in Parkville are better supervised. These peculiarities may offset the national averages. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that Parkville has a sports-injury problem to begin with.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误。作者认为意向关于运动受伤的nationwide数据不能用来说明Parkville的情况。接下来，作者指出Parkville地区可能存在的与其他地区不同的因素来驳斥原文观点。例如P地区有more stringent safety standards，或者P地区儿童在体育锻炼时被很好的监护。在没有排除这些可能性的情况下，引用全国调查是不可靠的。

Another troubling issue is that the argument assumes that in Parkville parents and coaches unduly pressure youngsters to win organized athletic competitions. The only evidence the author provides to substantiate this assumption are the reports from "big city" children—there is no information present on the conditions in Parkville. Perhaps people who live in big cities are generally more competitive than other people. If so, and if Parkville is not a big city, then the author cannot justifiably rely on these reports.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误。作者认为原文中“P地区的父母教练在竞技体育中给孩子很大的压力”存在逻辑错误。作者提出，原文引用的是一个关于“big city”报告，而没有提出关于P地区的证据。进一步，作者给出其他可能性来反驳原文观点，例如大城市的人要比P地区更competitive，而P地区不是大城市。

A third problem with the argument is that it assumes that children do not benefit academically from participating in competitive sports. It is entirely possible that such sports provide children with a break from academics that helps them to be more productive academically. It is also possible that the competitive drive that these sports may instill in young children carries over to their academics and spurs them on in their studies. Without considering the potential academic benefits of organized sports, the author cannot reasonably conclude that for young children the disadvantages of participating in athletic competition outweigh the benefits.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果（忽略他因）。原文中关于“参加竞技体育活动对儿童的学习没有帮助”的论点存在逻辑错误。作者提出其他可能性来反驳这一观点，例如：体育运动给儿童break，使他们学习效率更高；竞技体育活动使儿童在学习中更有上进心。

In the end, even if the recommendation is a sensible on, the argument upon which it is based is too flimsy. To be able to further consider the recommendation, an audience would need more information about the incidence of sports injuries among young children in Parkville. Further, the argument must demonstrate that Parkville's parents and coaches exert psychological pressure that affects academics negatively.  Finally, the audience must be able to see the correlation between sports, academics, and overall student performance.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即：C – S的结尾结构，首先再次重申原文的站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出给合理建议Suggestion。

【此段功能】

本段作为Argument结尾段，具体功能就总结归纳+建议措施，首先再次重申：原文的论证是没有说服力的。接下来作者给出使文章更有说服力的几条建议：一是要给出P地区儿童运动受伤的情况，二是要证明P地区家长和教练对孩子施加的压力影响了academics；三是要给出学生体育，学校，总体表现的关系。这几条建议含蓄的隐射前面的错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。

——————————————————————————————————————————

满分因素剖析

一、语言方面

1. One of the major problems with the argument is that it relies on the assumption that the nationwide statistics about...  equally to...—this might not be the case.（标志性的GRE argument论证段开头写法，指出原文汇总存在的错误为“调查类错误（范围大）”） Perhaps ... . Maybe ... .(接下来用一个perhaps开头的句子和maybe开头的句子来提出给出其他可能性) Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that ... .(最后重申这一段的调查类错误）

2. In the end, even if the recommendation is a sensible on, the argument upon which it is based is too flimsy. To be able to further consider the recommendation, an audience would need more information about... . Further, the argument must demonstrate that ...   Finally, the audience must be able to see the correlation between ... .

标志性的GRE argument结尾，首先重申原文中的conclusion存在问题，接下来给出是文章更有说服力的合理化建议。

二、逻辑结构

本文内容清晰，逻辑严谨，采用了开头段——正文段1——正文段2——正文段3——结尾段的五段论结构，文章长短适中，层次一目了然。开头段按照C-E的逻辑结构，顺利引出后文的分析。论证段中，从提出错误，到分析错误，到给出可能性，最后总结错误，层次清晰，衔接自然。结尾段总结全文，重申错误，给出合理化建议。这样一篇文章从开头到结尾逻辑严谨，内容清晰，圆满的完成了论证的作用。