GRE寫作官方題庫高頻ARGUMENT題目滿分范文分享： budgetary priority given to public education

　　The following appeared in a letter to the editor of city-run local newspaper:

　　"In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."

　　Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

　　【滿分范文賞析】

　　This argument concludes that Parson City residents value public-school education more highly than Blue City residents do. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that in both cities the majority of funds for public schools comes from taxes, and that Blue City budgets only half as much money per year for its public schools as Parson City, even though the population in both cities is about the same. The argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which, considered together, render the argument wholly unconvincing.

　　【本段結構】

　　本文采用了標準的Argument開頭段結構，即C—A—F的開頭結構。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后簡要提及原文為支持其結論所引用的一系列Assumption及細節(jié)，最后給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即這些Assumption無法讓原文邏輯上沒有問題。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為Argument開頭段，本段具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結論，即Parson城市的居民比Blue城市的居民對公立學校更加看重。本段接下來提到了原文中為支持之前的Conclusion所提供的證據(jù)，即每年Blue城市從稅收中給予當?shù)毓W校的資金僅僅是Parson城市的一半。文章提及這些信息，為是在正文段中對這些Assumption即將進行的具體攻擊做鋪墊。

　　One such assumption is that the total budget for the two cities is approximately the same. It is entirely possible that Blue City's total budget is no more than half that of Parson City. If so, that would account for the discrepancy in the allocation of funds and could not be understood as an indicator that one city cares more or less about education. Even if Parson City devotes a greater percentage of its budget each year for its schools rather than amount of money, the argument relies on the additional assumption that this percentage is a reliable indicator of the value residents place on public-school education. Yet, it is entirely possible, for example, that Blue City's schools are already well funded, or that Blue City has some other, extremely urgent problem which requires additional funding despite a high level of concern among its residents about its public schools. Without clear evidence regarding the circumstances that the two city's face, any comparative analysis is not useful.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第一個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第一段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第一個重要邏輯錯誤——樣本類錯誤。原文當中假設，Parson城市和Blue城市的每年總預算是相同的。但實際上可能情況并非如此。有可能Blue城市用于公立學校的這部分資金所占的總預算的比例是要高于Parson城市的，也就是說Blue城市的居民比Parson更關心公立學校的教育。因此在沒有考慮這些樣本因素的情況下，原文簡單地將Parson和Blue的資金分配情況進行比較是不合理的。

　　Finally, although the argument states that in both cities the majority of money spent on public schools comes from taxes, perhaps the actual percentage is smaller in Blue City than in Parson City, and other such funds come from residents' donations, earmarked for public education. Thus it is possible that Blue City residents donate more money for public-school education than Parson City residents do. If so, this possibility further weakens the argument.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第三個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第三段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第三個重要邏輯錯誤——類比類錯誤。原文假設，僅僅從稅收資金對公立學校的分配比例和具體數(shù)額就能得知當?shù)鼐用駥W校的關心程度的差異。但實際上這樣的籠統(tǒng)的類比忽略了能夠產(chǎn)生類似結果的其他因素。所以，原文的這個觀點是不能讓人確信的。