GRE Argument 满分范文5篇

ArgumentSample 1In this argument the author employs a variety of evidence about Paleans, including their geographical isolation and the discovery of a basket, to argue that Palean baskets could have been made by non-Palean cultures. We may accept part of the authors claim regarding the Paleans, but in the absence of some critical evidence, we cannot accept the conclusion that the Paleans have no means of transporting one of their baskets to other region.In the first place, the author assumes that the Paleans could not have reached Lithos because no Palean boat has been found. However, the author is treating a lack of proof that the Paleans could have possessed some kind of boat as sufficient proof that they did not possess any such vehicles at all. From the passage we are only informed that Palean boats “were not found”, but the mere fact that no boat found currently could not fully illustrate that the Paleans did not have boats. We need concrete evidence to show that the Paleans did not master the skill of shipbuilding.Granted that the Paleans did possess no boats, we still need evidence to prove that the basket could not have arrived in Lithos by other means. Although the Brim River is deep and broad at present, it might be shallower and narrower at Palean time, or at least some sections of the river were less deep and broad at that time. If so, the Paleans could have crossed the river without boat. Some archaeological and geological records or documents about the condition of the Brim River at ancient time might be useful for evaluating the argument.Assuming that the river was also deep and broad in ancient time and can be crossed only by boat, there is a possibility that some vehicles were in the possession of a second culture with whom the Palean people kept in contact. The second culture might have brought the discovered basket to Lithos during trading or other activities. Also possibly, the basket may have been brought to Lithos by some other people latterly after the disappearance of the Paleans, or may have drifted to the site due to geological accidents such as a flood. The author should provide evidence to show that Paleans had no significant contact with other cultures who possessed boats, and that the basket could not be carried to the site through other methods such as trading or some accidents. We still cannot rule out the possibility that the baskets were unique to Palean culture without such information.In sum, the conclusion is hastily reached. Before the claim that other cultures could have produced so-called Palean baskets is accepted, the author should provide concrete evidence to show that Paleans were never capable of building boats. The author also needs to rule out other possible ways by which the basket could travel to other places.Sample 2In the argument the arguer points out that Crust Copper Company (CCC) has purchased a vast of land in West Fredonia and that mining here will inevitably lead to tremendous pollution. To avoid such environmental problems, the arguer suggests that boycott towards products produced by CCC will be an effective measure. Well-intentioned the arguer may be, several unwarranted assumptions may render the boycott unnecessary or ineffective.First, the underlying assumption that the deterioration of environment and disturbance to endangered animals will inevitably occur is open to doubt. Ten thousand square miles are, without any doubt, so large an area that almost make up the total territory of New York City, there is likelihood that only a very small proportion of the land is used for mining. Furthermore, with the advanced technology of waste disposal and environmental-friendly recycling, the pollution, if any, can be so insignificant that almost has no negative effect to the environment. Even if the exploration is heavy, the arguer does not inform us to what extent the mining areas and the habitat of endangered species overlap. If they locate far away from each other, the mining would have little effect to local animals. Without taking these factors into consideration, the arguer could not successfully convince us that CCCs mining process will bring about horrible results, and the boycott would be totally unnecessary in this case.Second, the feasibility of the arguers proposal can also be cast doubt on. The proposal could be smoothly carried out only if the consumers can reliably distinguish products that are made with CCCs copper. We all know that only the brand of the final producer will be engraved to a product. For instance, if a copper lock is manufactured, consumers can only identify the brand of the lock company. It is unlikely that a nonprofessional consumer can tell the material supplier of a certain product. Even assuming that consumers can effectively recognize copper products made with CCCs copper, and that the vast majority of such consumers can be gathered by certain means, whether all of them are willing to cooperate in the boycott is still not guaranteed. It is highly possible that most consumers care more about the quality and cost of a product while little about environmental problems. If the consumers cannot distinguish products using CCCs copper, or they have no interest in the boycott, the proposal would be meaningless at all, let alone prevent environmental problems.In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive and the arguer should provide additional information to demonstrate that CCC will cause a disastrous effect on the environment of West Fredonia once its mining plan is carried out. The arguer also needs to prove that the proposed boycott is not only practically feasible, but also sufficient and necessary for the arguers purpose.Sample 3In this argument the manager suggests that Rialto must offer same features as Apex, a newly opened theater, to attract moviegoers. The manager describes many fancy functions featured by Apex and the dissatisfaction of moviegoers about the high price of new movies. However, merely these facts could not prove that the proposed action will guarantee Rialtos share of the market.A foremost question is: whether Apex was really a great success? We are not informed about the actual profit and the number of moviegoers of Apex. It is possible that the costs of these fashionable features are so high that the ticket prices of Apex are higher than other theaters, which will further prevent moviegoers on a tight budget from going to it, or that the ticket income of Apex remains low although it had featured those functions.Granted that Apex has gained great profits, we may still ask that whether the success resulted from those new features. Many other factors would also influence peoples choice on a theater. For example, people would be concerned more about the distance of the theater from their houses. Meanwhile, whether the lack of these features has caused a decreased share of moviegoers for Rialto is open to doubt. Perhaps the total number of residents in down town area was decreasing recently, and therefore Rialto could not attract as many people as before.Another question that should be addressed is the comparability of the two theaters. As we know, many factors would make them quite different from each other: their locations, the types of movie they mainly feature, the ticket price, etc. Any one of these factors would make the measures less effective in Rialto as in Apex. The manager cannot convince us that Rialto could gain profits by simply copying the features of Apex.Furthermore, we may question the reliability of the survey. We could not be sure if the respondents of the survey are representative of the overall population of the city and constitute a large number of people. Besides, granted that the respondents opinion could represent that of our general residents, Rialto could take other actions as response, such as featuring some formerly-released movies with lower price.It is understandable that a theater should struggle for its survival. But before the manager could provide complete information about the actual profits of Apex, and show clear evidence that Apex has attracted many moviegoers because of its new features, we could not hastily conclude that providing these features at Rialto would secure its future prosper.Sample 4Basing on the assumption that farmers are receiving excessive profits on increased supply of milk, the author recommends Batavia government to regulate retail milk prices. Admittedly, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the stability of the market, however, several questions must be addressed before we could determine whether the regulation will be necessary and effective for lowering milk price.A critical assumption of the argument is that the farmers are receiving unreasonable profits, which is unwarranted before several factors have been considered. A foremost question is that whether the number of dairy farms could accurately reflect the supply of milk, for there is no necessary relationship between them. It is possible that the average milk supply of each single farm has dropped and therefore the total supply would not increase. It is also possible that a great proportion of milk produced has been processed to other dairy products or has been exported. The milk supply on market will decrease in these cases.Granted that the supply of milk did increase during the past decade, we may well ask that whether the prices of milk are increasing all over the country. The author provides only one sample-the Excello market to illustrate the variation of milk price, but many factors may render the situation at the market unrepresentative of the national trends. Perhaps the supply of milk in the region where the market locates was relatively lower than national average, or the milk production is much more costly here due to some geographic factors. Any one of these possibilities would make the higher milk price in Excllo totally a normal phenomenon.Even if the prices of milk were also doubled throughout the country, just as happened in Excello, the author overlooks a myriad of economic factors that would result in the increase. Consider, for example, the cost of milk production and transportation might have increased as well during the same period, or perhaps the supply of milk could not meet the demand in spite of an increased supply. The author also needs to inform us how much did the price of milk actually increase after adjustment for inflation. Without accounting for these factors, the author could not convince us that farmers have received excessive profits and that the regulation is indeed necessary.Finally, even if the author can successfully address all the questions foregoing, it is unjustifiable to conclude that the regulation of retail milk prices could ensure an adequate supply of milk and therefore, a fair price. It is likely that the regulation would reduce the profits of farmers; they might be less interested in producing milk, or will produce less milk as a response. If so, adopting the authors recommendation will actually lead to inadequate supply of milk rather than the optimistic result expected by the author.Undoubtedly, the authors intention of keeping the market stable and ensuring fair price of milk is justified. But to convince us that the regulation is necessary to ensure a reasonable milk price and adequate supply, the author must substantiate the assumption that the profits received by farmers are undeserved and that the regulation is sufficient for ensuring lower price. Hastily carrying out such regulation would actually pose negative effects on the supply of milk.Sample 5The fewer sick days and lower diagnosis of stress-related illness in Leeville may, to some extent, indicate better health status of residents. But the situation could also be explained by many other factors. It is too hasty for the Chamber of Commerce to conclude that it is the relaxed pace of life that brings those health benefits.First of all, the Chamber implies that Leeville residents are in satisfying health condition, which serves as a foremost premise of the argument. However, the number of sick days and the diagnosis of stress-related illness do not necessarily indicate the health condition of residents. The fewer sick days may result from strict restrictions on sick leaves at Leeville factories; or perhaps the workers will receive harsher punishment once they take too many sick leaves, thus they will be unable to take more sick leaves as a result. Another explanation is that the workers might be unwilling to be absent from work for certain reasons. Similarly, the fewer diagnosis of stress-related illness could also be explained by other reasons. It is possible that people in Leeville are not willing to visit doctors for these diseases, or maybe there are some differences in the diagnostic criteria of the disease in the two cities. If the criterion or definition of the disease is more rigorous in Leeville than in Masonton, then it is conceivable that the incidence of such disease in Masonton will be higher. In this case, the diagnosis of this illness could not accurately reflect the actual level of stress of residents, let alone their actual level health.Granted that Leeville residents are living healthier lives, physically and mentally, there are still many other factors, rather than the relaxed pace of life suggested by the Chamber, that could contribute to the situation. The myriad factors might include better environment and weather, healthier life style in Leeville, which will lead to good health condition and less illness. It is also possible that the working condition and work ethic in Leeville factories are better than those in Masonton, or Leeville has harmonious neighborhoods, which could explain the lower level of mental stress.As commonly known, a relaxed pace of life often promotes peoples health status, but we cannot conclude that the better health of Leeville residents is also the result of their pace of life. The Chamber should consider and rule out all other possibilities before we could be convinced that the relaxed lifestyle is the actual and only explanation for the health condition of Leeville residents.