gre作文入门和进阶(doc26)-经营管理(编辑修改稿)

gre作文入门和进阶(doc26)-经营管理(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

ucts of the privacy publicized, this time they probably even couldn39。 t help to rush up to the media reporters and proffer their kisses. Oh, well, to the scandals mostly reported in any entertainment channel, these figures ultimately reaches a top limitation of inured tolerance, especially those survive by their shingles of excellent prestige, such as those politicians. In the period of election of presidents or senators, the most headache those participants suffer is the side report, which has the overwhelming clout to remove his precious stake to his adversary39。 s side. Then the only thing they must remember is the discretion of their words and behaviors either in public case or merely in private room. There is no absolute stalwart wall that can resist the strong blast, and the unique paper that can wrap the burning flame. According to this principle, the expectation for their privacy no longer staying for himself is no doubt fathomable to them, astonishment is just an effete struggle. To sum up, being an illustrious man have to pay his privacy for the undertaking brilliance, and he should understand without the public desire to delve their everyday life instead of merely relying on their limited published works, they convincingly cannot earn such a lot from their maniac supporters, who also need them to care for and give enough regards as feedback. Once this plex relationship being disentangled, I think, the public figures and populace will make a balance on the scale of privacy revelation. (690 words) 在切实掌握好这些技巧之后，后续的问题也会接踵而来，很多考生在认识到问题的严重性之后，不知道如何从开始回应起就把握好文章的走向而不跑题，作好条理性的框架是必须的，但是最简便的方法就是 (千万注意啊。 )—— 将话题的内容编成问句，自己的每段回应编成回答，如果作到有问必答，那么你就没有跑题，否则就要重新构思回到正轨上来。 这个方法在备考初期研究题库预先构思时尤为重要，他能检验你提纲的合理性，否则一旦到了考场，你来不及重新构思而盲目照搬，后果不堪设想。 希望这里的这点提醒能够引起各位考生足够的重视，不要白白无谓牺牲。 而这个问题对于 ARGUMENT 来说，情况要好得多，一方面由于 ARGUMENT 回应方式比较固定且其较 ISSUE 来说约定俗成的高度模式化，另一方面是由于 ARGUMENT 的易于操作性和熟悉性，利用的资源都来自题干本身，因而考生在这篇作文上很少看走眼。 但是也有些题目，由于脱胎于 ETS 惯常的逻辑单题模式，本身语言饶口，且容易将论据与结论混淆，从而导致一定程度的攻击失误，虽然不至于像 ISSUE 那样导致全盘失误，但是毕竟在最好拿分的项目上失分无疑是给原本脆弱的分数雪上加霜。 下面我们看一道在去年年末左右华东考场遇 到的一道少见的 ARGUMENT 难题，难就难在对于论据和结论的辩识和推理上，还有就是逻辑谬误不是像其他题目那样明显地向你挥手 —— “向我开炮。 ” article entitled 39。 Eating Iron39。 in last month39。 s issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the wellestablished link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation 中国最庞大的下资料库 (整理 . 版权归原作者所有 ) 第 8 页 共 26 页 between red meat and heart disease. 析题：仔细读过，发现这道题有点绕，很多考生曾经有过这样的困惑：“我没有理解最后一句话的意思 is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart high iron level于 heart disease 之间的关系是 red meat 与 heart disease 之间有关的结果那作者到底是认为 high iron level和 heart disease之间有没有关系阿。 ”再读之下，我们会发现作者其实 做了一个顺接推论： red meat 引起心脏病 red meat里面还有大量的铁 高铁引起心脏病，就是这么一个简单的推论过程，关键认清谁推出谁，就要在审题时注意到关键的这么看似不经意却被友好的 ETS“重复两次”的短语“ well established”，也就是说“大量红肉与心脏病之间一定有联系”是不容质疑的论据，即本题论据是不容批驳的，关键问题在于由论据推导出结论的时候犯了“ Implicit causal claims”和“ gratuitous assumptions” (详细逻辑谬误分类见后文“七宗罪” )，因而我们就可以以次展开攻击。 很多来自网上的文章和提纲在本题上颠倒了推导对象，把“高铁引起心脏病”作为论据来推出“ red meat 引起心脏病”，结果导致文章失误。 下面读者可通过以下范文检验一下该论证过程和思路： (范文 ) The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his causeandeffect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can39。 t stand much reexamination. I agree to the wellestablished theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people39。 s diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the ingredientsiron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other ponents also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer39。 s peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption. Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer39。 s elicitation, we believe the red meat does contain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our mon sense, Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease? The answer we can39。 t obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained. As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people39。 s health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected。 and it is just for this point, I39。 m afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red 中国最庞大的下资料库 (整理 . 版权归原作者所有 ) 第 9 页 共 26 页 meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. (352 words) —— silentwings 原则二：“大胆创新，敢于说‘不’”。 这个原则是就思想内容本身而提出的，主要就 ISSUE 而言。 之所以如此，是因为现在的题库中有太多显而易见的明。