GMAT高分作文模板

1、1.我用的是 800分大牛 tonyadidas 的 AA 模版，但根據(jù)實(shí)際經(jīng)驗(yàn)，對(duì)各段稍作精簡(jiǎn)（把拗口 的一些詞、句式去掉），再排了序（挑出?？嫉?的高頻理由）。2. 畫(huà)線處為經(jīng)典的段首、尾句式，請(qǐng)務(wù)必 背熟、靈活運(yùn)用！因?yàn)楦鞫蝺?nèi)容可以現(xiàn)編，也常 常編的是廢話反復(fù)說(shuō)，但有了這樣漂亮的段首、 尾來(lái)保障結(jié)構(gòu)，就安全多了。非常經(jīng)典的開(kāi)頭、結(jié)尾 看完題目就開(kāi)始直接 打這兩段，邊打邊想理由?。ń?jīng)典）開(kāi)頭段模板 The conclusion endorsed inthis argument is that .Several reasons are offered in support of this a

2、rgument. First of all, the author points out that . In addition, the author reasons that （What ' s more, he also assumes thatfirst glance, the author' s argument appears to besomewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that the conclusion is based on some dubious assumptions and the

3、reasoning is biased due to the inadequacy and partiality in the nature of evidence provided to justify the conclusion. A carefulexamination would review how groundless this conclusion is.（經(jīng)典）結(jié)尾段模板 To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it isimprudent for the author t

4、o claim that.To mthis argument logically acceptable, the author would have to show that . In additiono,ltidoifsy the conclusion, the author should provide concrete evidence as well to demonstrate that . Only witmore convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal. （

5、結(jié)尾 中復(fù)述的理由就 copy/paste 開(kāi)頭中的理由）高頻理由（按頻率由高到低排列）時(shí)序性因果攻擊 Firstly, the author is engaged in after this, therefore, because of this' realine of reasoning is that because A happened before B, the former caused the latter. However, this reasoning is fallacious unless other possible causal factors have be

6、en considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps C. As a result, any decision aimed at addressing the problem of B must be based on amore thorough in vestigati on to gather data in order to n arrow dow n and locate the actual cause of B. 同時(shí)性因果攻擊 Secondly, the author s 'olution rests on the assu

7、mption that A is the cause of B just because A coin cided with B. However, a mere positi onal correlati on does not n ecessarily prove a causal relati on ship .In additi on, all other prospective causes of B, such as C and D, must be ruled out. Without detailed an alysis of the real source of B, it

8、would be groun dless to attribute B to A.錯(cuò)誤類(lèi)比攻擊 Additionally, it is highly doubtful that strategies draw n from A are applicable to B. However, differe nces betwee n these two clearly outweigh the similarities, therefore maki ng the an alogy much less valid. For example, C and D all affect A but vir

9、tually absent in B. Accordingly, we can see that A and B are so dissimilar that B is un likely to experie nee the same con seque nee if it adopts A ' s strategi 非此即彼攻擊 Last but not least, the author unfairly assumes that a reader must make a either-or choice. However, the argument fails to rule

10、out possibility that adjusting A and B might produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that A and B are the only causes of the problem, thus the most effective soluti on might in clude a complex of other factorssuch as C and D. In any eve nt, the author provides no j

11、ustification for the mutually exclusive choice imposed on the reader.必要性攻擊 In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that B was determ ined solely by A. While A is a seem in gly importa nt eleme nt in determ ining B, it is hardly the only or even necessarily required eleme nt. This assumpti on

12、 overlooks other crucial criteria in determ ining B such as C, D. Without accounting for these potential factors, the author concludes too hastily that is the best way to achieve goals.充分性攻擊 In the second place, the author ' s soluti on rests on the assumpti on that A is sufficie nt to give birt

13、h to the desired goals. However, if it tur ns out that B is due to a comb in ati on of factors, some of which will rema in un cha nged in the future, such as C and D, only A might have no impact on B.選擇性樣本攻擊A threshold problem is that theauthor provides no evidenee to claim that the general group as

14、 a whole is of the same characteristic. The example cited, while suggestive of this tren d, is insufficient to warrant that the sample is represe ntative of the whole group. For example, I question thatTherefore, suchencd would beobviously un represe ntative .In fact, i n face of such limited evide

15、nee, it is fallacious for the author to draw any con clusi on at all.（與 選擇性樣本攻擊”較類(lèi)似）樣本代表性攻擊 Moreover, a possible methodology problem in the argument is that it is of bias. The term so many ' is too vague to be statistically meaningful. It is very possible that workers who were more in terested i

16、n the survey might be likely to respond to the questi onn aire. Lack ing in the in formati on about the nu mber of workers surveyed and the nu mber of resp onden ts, it is impossible to assess the validity of the surve y. For in sta nee, if 1000 workers were surveyed but only 10 resp on ded, the res

17、ult should be highly suspect. Because the author fails to account for other in terpretati ons, the survey would be useless in concluding that .其他理由忽略他因攻擊 Thirdly, the author has focused only on A. A more detailed an alysis would reveal that other factors far outweigh the factor on which the author f

18、ocuses. For example, C. Lack ing a more comprehe nsive an alysis of the causes, it is presumptuous for the author to claim that A solely determ ined B.因果倒置攻擊 At last, it is possible that the author has con fused cause with effect. Perhaps A was a resp onse to B. Si nee the author fails to acco unt f

19、or this possibility, the claim that is completely un warra nted.樣本數(shù)量攻擊 Ano ther problem that seriously weakens the logic of this argument is that the survey cited is based on too small a sample to be reliable. Offered in support of the argume nt, the only evide nee is that Unless it can be shown tha

20、t thesample is typical of all gen eral group, the fact that is gro un dless to claim thatLoaded question 和誠(chéng)實(shí)性攻擊 What' s more, the methodology of the survey is problematic for two reas ons. For one thi ng, we are not in formed whether the survey provided only 3 alter natives .If it did, the resp

21、onden ts, who might very well prefer ano ther choice not provided in the survey, might be forced to give up their prefere nces. For ano ther thing, we are not in formed whether the survey resp on ses were anon ymous or con fide ntial. The resp ondents might supply resp on ses favored by their superi

22、ors who might con duct the surve y. Both eve nts would lead this survey unreliable, let alone draw the conclusion that 樣本時(shí)效性攻擊 Last but not least, another flaw that sig nifica ntly un derm ines this argume nt is that the author n eglects to in dicate how rece ntly the survey was actually con ducted.

23、 Whe n used to gen erally claim a particular group, the samples should be close eno ugh to support the gen eralizati on, in order to prevent historical changes from invalidating thegeneralization. All we know is that the survey is recently published. The less recent the survey itself, the less relia

24、ble the results to demonstrate that 差異概念攻擊 To begin with, we must establish the meaning of the vague concept A. If the term were synonymous with B, the evidence cited would strongly support the argument. However, A may be defined in other terms such as C and D. Accordingly, the author has drawn the conclusion too hastily due to the ignorance of other definitions of A. 范圍內(nèi)推攻擊 What' s more, the most egregious reasoning error in this argument is that the author uses evidence pertaining to a general group on the