GRE作文范文 Argument-20

"All students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

In this argument, the writer argues that all students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. The writer's reasoning is based on several accidents in and around Centerville over the past two years that involved teenage drivers, and that parents have complained that they are too busy to teach their own teenagers to drive. The writer also states that although there are two driving schools in Centerville, some parents cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. The writer's argument is based on faulty logic and suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the writer cites several accidents over the past two years in and around Centerville involving teenagers as evidence that they should be required to take a driver's education course at the high school. The writer assumes that these accidents were caused by the teenagers' lack of driver's education, which may or may not be the case. There is no evidence presented that directly shows a causal link between the teenagers' lack of driver's education and the cause of the accidents. It is entirely possible that these teenagers had already had the driver's education courses, and that the accidents were simply unavoidable or even the other driver's fault. Without further direct causal evidence, the writer's argument fails to convince that all teenagers should be required to take the driver's education course.

Secondly, the writer produces no evidence that shows a direct link between the driver's education course at Centerville High School and the prevention of accidents involving teenage drivers. The writer assumes such a causal linkage but delivers nothing other than his or her personal opinion as evidence that the driver's education course helps prevent accidents. Furthermore, the writer states that all students should be required to take the driver's education course. The writer fails to take into consideration students that do not drive, as well as students that may have already taken a driver's education course elsewhere. Even assuming the value of the high school's driver's education course, there will obviously be no reduction in teenagers' accidents if the students do not drive in the first place. Additionally, it is doubtful that repeating the driver's education course will result in any further reduction in accidents involving teenagers. For these reasons, the writer's argument again falls short of convincing the reader of the value of mandatory high school driver's education.

Finally, the writer states that an effective and mandatory driver's education program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem. Again, the writer falsely assumes that the only cause of such accidents is the lack of teenagers' driver's education, for which there is no support whatsoever in the argument. A better course of action would be to determine the true cause of such accidents, then tailor a solution to address the specific causes of the problem, rather than imposing a mandatory driver's education program on all students. Perhaps mandatory driver's education for all drivers would be a better solution, but there is no basis present in the argument on which to single out students and their lack of driver's education as the source of the problem of accidents in Centerville.

In summary, the writer's argument looks logical at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic. There is no evidence presented that a lack of driver's education for students is the cause of the problem in Centerville; therefore there is no basis for forcing all students to take the program. To strengthen the argument, the writer should show a direct correlation between the automobile accidents and a lack of driver's education among Centerville High School students. Without such evidence, the argument is groundless.

(632 words)

參考譯文

下文出自一封致森特維爾鎮(zhèn)學(xué)校董事會(huì)的信函：

"所有在森特維爾高中就讀的學(xué)生，都要求修司機(jī)教育課程。在過(guò)去的兩年里，在森特維爾鎮(zhèn)內(nèi)或周?chē)l(fā)生的幾起事故，都是十多歲的青少年司機(jī)。由于森特維爾的一些父母抱怨說(shuō)，他們太忙不能教他們十幾歲的孩子開(kāi)車(chē)，因此其它某個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)就有必要采取措施保證這些十幾歲的司機(jī)是安全的。盡管在林特維爾有兩所司機(jī)學(xué)校，但是經(jīng)濟(jì)拮據(jù)的父母付不起學(xué)習(xí)開(kāi)車(chē)的費(fèi)用，因此，我們高中開(kāi)設(shè)一門(mén)有效的且必修的課程，是解決該嚴(yán)重問(wèn)題的唯一辦法。"

在這一論點(diǎn)中，作者聲稱(chēng)所有在森特維爾高中就讀的學(xué)生都應(yīng)該修司機(jī)教育課程。作者推理的基礎(chǔ)是，在森特維爾鎮(zhèn)內(nèi)和周?chē)^(guò)去兩年多十幾歲司機(jī)所發(fā)生的事故，以及父母抱怨說(shuō)他們太忙而沒(méi)有時(shí)間教他們十幾歲的孩子開(kāi)車(chē)。作者還提到，盡管森特維爾鎮(zhèn)有兩所司機(jī)學(xué)校，但有些父母付不起學(xué)開(kāi)車(chē)的費(fèi)用。作者的論點(diǎn)是建立在錯(cuò)誤的邏輯基礎(chǔ)上的，而且有幾處關(guān)鍵的問(wèn)題。

首先，作者引用過(guò)去的兩年里在森特維爾鎮(zhèn)及其周?chē)貐^(qū)十幾歲司機(jī)所發(fā)生的幾起事故作為要求他們?cè)诟咧行匏緳C(jī)教育課程的根據(jù)。作者假定，這些事故是因?yàn)槭畮讱q的青少年缺乏司機(jī)教育而導(dǎo)致的。這可能是也可能不是真正的原因。論證過(guò)程中并沒(méi)有提供證據(jù)表明十幾歲的青少年缺乏司機(jī)教育與事故原因之間的因果關(guān)系。極有可能這些十幾歲的青年已經(jīng)修了司機(jī)教育課程，而事故完全是不可避免的，或者完全是其他司機(jī)的責(zé)任。由于沒(méi)有進(jìn)一步直接的因果關(guān)系，作者的論點(diǎn)不能被人相信所有十幾歲的青少年都必須修司機(jī)教育課程。

其次，作者沒(méi)有提供證據(jù)表明森特維爾中學(xué)開(kāi)設(shè)司機(jī)教育課程與防止十幾歲的司機(jī)發(fā)生事故的直接聯(lián)系。作者假定了這樣一種因果關(guān)系，并且僅僅用他/她自己的觀點(diǎn)來(lái)證明司機(jī)教育課程有助于防止事故。再者，作者說(shuō)道，所有的學(xué)生應(yīng)該修司機(jī)教育課程。作者沒(méi)有考慮到那些不開(kāi)車(chē)的學(xué)生以及那些在其他地方已經(jīng)修過(guò)司機(jī)課程的學(xué)生。甚至，僅僅開(kāi)設(shè)高中司機(jī)教育課程，并不會(huì)明顯地減少十幾歲司機(jī)的事故，倘若學(xué)生根本就不開(kāi)車(chē)。加之，令人懷疑的是，重申司機(jī)教育課程將能進(jìn)一步減少十幾歲司機(jī)的事故。由以上理由可見(jiàn)，作者的論證再次沒(méi)能使讀者相信在高中開(kāi)設(shè)司機(jī)教育必修課的價(jià)值。 最后，作者聲稱(chēng)，在高中開(kāi)設(shè)有效的、必修的司機(jī)教育課程，是唯一解決這一嚴(yán)重問(wèn)題的方法。這里，作者又錯(cuò)誤地假定事故的原因是缺乏十幾歲司機(jī)的教育課程，但他/她并沒(méi)有在論證中提供任何證據(jù)。一個(gè)更值得采取的行動(dòng)是確定此類(lèi)事故的真正原因，然后制定一個(gè)解決方法以處理該問(wèn)題的具體原因，而不是給所有學(xué)生強(qiáng)加一門(mén)司機(jī)教育必修課?；蛟S，所有司機(jī)必須接受司機(jī)訓(xùn)練將是一個(gè)更好的方法，但是在論證中沒(méi)有任何的依據(jù)使我們得以確認(rèn)學(xué)生及其司機(jī)教育的缺乏是森特維爾鎮(zhèn)交通事故的原因。

總之，作者的論證乍看起來(lái)似乎合乎邏輯，但仔細(xì)審視就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，它基于錯(cuò)誤的邏輯推理。它沒(méi)有提供證據(jù)證明學(xué)生缺乏司機(jī)教育課程是森特維爾鎮(zhèn)事故的原因;因此沒(méi)有理由強(qiáng)迫所有學(xué)生修學(xué)該課程。若要使該論證更具力度，作者應(yīng)該提供汽車(chē)事故與森特維爾鎮(zhèn)高中缺乏司機(jī)教育之間的直接聯(lián)系。沒(méi)有這樣的證據(jù)，論證成為無(wú)根之木、無(wú)源之水。