GRE寫作指導北美GRE寫作滿分范文解析

xx年GRE寫作指導北美GRE寫作總分值范文解析GRE寫作題庫范文下面是一篇官方給出總分值的ARGUMENT范文，我們來一起賞析，看看它為何能scoredsix(先讀文章，再看我的點評)Thefollowingappearedaspartofanarticleinadailynewspaper:"Mostpanieswouldagreethatastheriskofphysicalinjuryourringonthejobincreases,thewagespaidtoemployeesshouldalsoincrease.Henceitmakesfinancialsenseforemployerstomaketheworkplacesafer:theycouldthusreducetheirpayrollexpensesandsavemoney."Discusshowwellreasonedyoufindthisargument.Inyourdiscussionbesuretoanalyzethelineofreasoningandtheuseofevidenceintheargument.Forexample,youmayneedtoconsiderwhatquestionableassumptionsunderliethethinkingandwhatalternativeexplanationsorcounterexamplesmightweakentheconclusion.Youcanalsodiscusswhatsortofevidencewouldstrengthenorrefutetheargument,whatchangesintheargumentwouldmakeitmorelogicallysound,andwhat,ifanything,wouldhelpyoubetterevaluateitsconclusion.Thisargumentstatesthatitmakesfinancialsenseforemployerstomaketheworkplacesaferbecausebymakingtheworkplacesaferthenlowerwagescouldbepaidtoemployees.Thisconclusionisbasedonthepremisethatasthelistofphysicalinjuryincreases,thewagespaidtoemployeesshouldalsoincrease.However,thereareseveralassumptionsthatmaynotnecessarilyapplytothisargument.Forexample,thecostsassociatedwithmakingtheworkplacesafemustoutweightheincreasedpayrollexpensesduetohazardousconditions.Also,onemustlookattheplausabilityofimprovingtheworkenvironment.Andfinally,becausemostpaniesagreethatastheriskofinjuryincreasessowillwagesdoesn'tnecessarilymeanthattheallpanieswhichhavehazardousworkenvironmentsagree.Thefirstissuetobeaddressediswhetherincreasedlaborcostsjustifylargecapitalexpenditurestoimprovetheworkenvironment.Clearlyonecouldarguethatifmakingtheworkplacesafewouldcostanexorbitantamountofmoneyinparisontoleavingtheworkplaceasisandpayingslightlyincreasedwagesthanitwouldnotmakesensetoimprovetheworkenvironment.Forexample,ifmakingtheworkplacesafewouldcost$100millionversusadditionalpayrollexpensesofonly$5,000peryear,itwouldmakefinancialsensetosimplypaytheincreasedwages.Nobusinessorbusinessownerwithanysensewouldpayallthatextramoneyjusttosaveacoupledollarsandimproveemployeehealthandrelations.Toconsiderthis,acostbenefitanalysismustbemade.Ialsofeelthatalthoughacostbenefitanalysisshouldbethedeterminingfactorwithregardtothesedecisionsmakingfinancialsense,itmaynotbethedeterminingfactorwithregardtomakingsocial,moralandethicalsense.Thisargumentalsoreliesontheideathatpaniessolelyusefinancialsenseinanalysingimprovingtheworkenvironment.Thisisnotthecase.Companieslookatotherconsiderationssuchasthenegativesocialramificationsofhighon-jobinjuries.Forexample,Toyotaspendslargeamountsofmoneyimprovingitsenvironmentbecausewhileitsgoalistobeprofitable,italsopridesitselfonhighemployeemoraleandanalmostperfectlysafeworkenvironment.However,Toyotafindsthatitcandoboth,asbyimprovingemployeehealthandemployeerelationstheyareguaranteedamoremotivatedstaff,andhenceamoreefficientstaff;thisguaranteesmoremoneyforthebusinessaswellasmoresafetyfortheemployees.Finallyonemustunderstandthatnotallworkenvironmentscanbemadesafer.Forexample,inthecaseofcoalmining,apanyonlyhaslimitedwaysofmakingtheworkenvironmentsafe.Whilepaniesmaybeabletoensuresomesafetyprecautions,theymaynotbeabletoprovideallthesafetymeasuresnecessary.Inotherwords,aminingpanyhaslimitedabilitytocontroltheairqualitywithinacoalmineandthereforeitcannotcontroltheriskofemployeesgettingblacklung.Inotherwords,regardlessoftheintentofthepany,somejobsaresimplydangerousinnature.Inconclusion,whileatfirstitmayseemtomakefinancialsensetoimprovethesafetyoftheworkenvironmentsometimesittrulydoesnotmakefinancialsense.Furthermore,financialsensemaynotbetheonlyissueapanyfaces.Othertypesofanalysesmustbemadesuchasthesocialramificationsofanunsafeworkenvironmentandtheoverallabilityofapanytoimprovethatenvironment(i.e。，coalmine)。Beforeanydecisionismade,allthisthingsmustbeconsidered,notsimplythereductionofpayrollexpenses.1.字數高達599words,GRE充分表達了字數為王的判分傾向。2.標準的五段制，首段、GRE末端，中間三段，看上去很美。3.沒有陳詞濫調、GRE滿篇廢話的模板式語言。1.首段再現(xiàn)了原TOPIC的推理過程，GRE并指出其assumptions多有不適;尤其令閱卷人快樂的是：首段在最后簡化羅列了推理中的三個問題。要知道美國人就喜歡的---總分式，在首段就把三個ideas羅列出來，然后在中間三段分別展開，先總后分，一目了然。2.中一的TS--“Thefirstissuetobeaddressediswhetherincreasedlaborcostsjustifylargecapitalexpenditurestoimprovetheworkenvironment.”可謂是一針見血，一劍封喉。對于這樣嚴重的推理破綻，假設不首先指出，其argument必然軟弱乏力。此所謂Topic中的“必削點”，不可不察。3.中二的TS–“Thisargumentalsoreliesontheideathatpaniessolelyusefinancialsenseinanalysingimprovingtheworkenvironment.”這可謂是劍走偏鋒，獨辟蹊徑，出人所料。文章竟然批評了Topic以錢為本經營理念，提出了要以人為本，這樣寫是有一定風險，畢竟這不是Issue。那本文是如何化險為夷的呢?且看本段最后一句“thisguaranteesmoremoneyforthebusinessaswellasmoresafetyfortheemployees.”我不由得長舒一口，人家再次回歸了，又回到了Topic中以“Money”為本的推理。4.中三的TS–“Finallyonemustunderstandthatnotallworkenvironmentscanbemadesafe