GRE/GMAT写作

GRE—argument78：给仓库除害虫哪家强

【案例】：

The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.

"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."

【指令】：

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.

【逻辑错误】：

1：证据不足（取样周期短）；

2：对比中的定量问题；

3：忽略其他变量。

【范文】：

The vice president of the food distribution company, being despondent about the Fly-Away Pest Control Company, decided to continue their partnership with their Buzzoff. This means is thought as the most economical one. However, the facts afforded could hardly render this argument to be a persuasive one. More evidences substantiating the advantages of the Buzzoff Pest Control Company given, this argument is prone to be plausible. (开头段语言需简洁，结构需清晰)

Initially, the Fly-Away Pest Control Company is not necessarily to be a disappointing one when being evaluated after longer-time cooperation（段首句即概括出了逻辑错误）. The appalling data collected （注意修饰词背后反映的逻辑） about Fly-Away recently might not mirror the average performance of it, which may mislead its cooperators. Likewise, the seemingly-heartening figure revealed （此处的修饰部分暗示Buzzoff的表现并不一定令人鼓舞）about Buzzoff in recent days does not mean Buzzoff performs better all the time. Besides, even though this food distribution enterprise has cooperated with Buzzoff for many years （此段都在写有关时间的问题，所以关键词many years也可放进来讨论），the reason why they have built this solid partnership may due to the limited alternatives of pest control companies in Wintervale. Clearly, performance of each company presented last month could not testify it is a superb or inferior one (evidence题型的证据不足的错误通常跟取样周期短有关系). 

Apart from that, even though more value of foods had been destructed by pest when Fly-Away is in charge, the cooperation with the Fly-Away company should not be discontinued before analyzing a couple of variables (变量不讨论，难以下结论). The first variable is geological location (地理位置差异). These two pest control firms are located in Wintervale and Palm City respectively, where the storage condition may differ. Palm City in which Fly-Away locates might bear higher humidity and temperature, which is unfavorable for storing foods. Assuming that these two cities have similar climate, the foods stored in each one might not be exactly the same (用假设关系引出第二个变量). It is possible that those foods stored in Palm City tend to be more perishable （细节展开详略得当，此点简略提及即可）. These flaws undetected, Fly-Away should not be blamed for making more losses of foods.

Conclusion

（略）

更多关于出国留学考试的个性化问题欢迎咨询新航道官网