GRE作文模板Argument Models.doc

GRE Argument ModelsSelective sampleThe sample is randomly selected and is representative of the general groupTo point out that the current sample is not randomly selected and could not represent the general group or that the survey only special groups of subjects while many people have been ignoredThe author implies that the sample studied in the survey could present the general group, but the author consider only (the selective sub-group)Although the sub-group studied do constitute a significant part of the general group, many other sub-groups are excluded from the study.The conditions situation of other sub-group might be quite different.Without ruling out the above possibility, the author could not make any general conclusion about that the general population (do something) merely based on the selective sub-group. Quantity of the sampleQuantity of the sample, are the respondents representative, changing scopeThe sample size is insufficient to be statistically representative.The quantity of the sample is sufficient to be representative.To point out the current sample is not sufficient is size, and might not represent all the other sub-group.The fact cited by the author could hardly illustrate the assumption that The sample studied might be special cases and is too limited to be representative.We cannot accept the authors implication that before more statistic data about are provided.Do the statistics make any difference?The purpose of the survey is insignificant in supporting the final conclusionTo point out that the result of the study could not give strong and sufficient support to the finial conclusion or even has nothing to do with the conclusionThe information provided by the author is in sufficient for illustrating the conclusion or assumptionThe survey only studies the situation of some special casesHowever, many more critical cases were ignored in the survey.To evaluate the argument, we need the author to provide more information about the ignored cases and more information about other subjectsLacking further studies on these important issues, the author could not hastily conclude that merely based on the insignificant study.What questions were asked in the survey?The question asked in the survey is not directly related to the final conclusion or the question itself may have some misleading effects.Another flaw is the question asked in the survey aboutMerely this question could not lend strong support to the authors conclusion thatThe result cited above could hardly support the conclusion before the author could provide substantial evidence to illustrate thatWho conducted the surveyThe institution who conducted the survey may have vested interest in the result, or it may affect the reliability of the result.The institution should be neutral and have not vested interest in the result.The reliability of the survey is also open to doubt due to the organization who conducted the survey.The organization has vested interest in the final result which was based on the result of the survey and thus might distort the actual answer of the respondentsThe author should cited a conclusion form a survey conducted by an independent constitution to convince us that the assumptionWhen was the survey conducted?The survey was conducted in a special period, or was conducted a long time ago; the result of the survey could not represent the general situationThere were no fundamental change occurred during the period after the survey conducted.The effectiveness of the survey cited as main evidence is open to doubt.The survey was conducted, thus may not reflect the current situation accuratelyThe author should provide evidence that peoples opinion toward has not changed greatly during the past time.A more recent survey, if necessary at all, should be provided to sufficiently illustrate the assumption thatAre the respondents forthright when answering the questionsThe respondents may not express their actual opinion feeling or situation due to the circumstance which the survey was conducted.To point out that some setting of the survey might be improper to obtain the true information from the respondents or the respondents might be unwilling to tell the truth for some reason. Validity and reliabilityThe reliability of the respondents answers is not sufficiently justifiedThere is possibility that the respondents may not tell the truth about for the reason thatUnder such circumstance, it is almost impossible to expect the respondents to provide accurate information aboutAre the respondents representative?Same with the formerVague dataThe data or information provided in the argument is too vague to make thorough and justified evaluation about the actual situationThe information concerning is not accurate enough to evaluate the actual conditionThe author only inform us that the percentage or fraction of the sub-group in the general group but we do not know the base mount ofLack of fraction the author only provide us the many or few however, we need to know the fraction of the general group actuallyIf the base amount or corresponding fraction varies, the conclusion would be different.For lack of detailed information about we can hardly assessIncomplete informationInformation provided in the argument is incomplete to make thorough and justified evaluation about the actual situation.Point out that the information provided by the author is incomplete. We need more accurate information about the cases studied, or some other information that is more pertinent to the argument should be provided to assess the problemThe author does not provide complete information concerningFor lack of detailed information about, we can hardly evaluateFalse analogyThe author recommends an institution to copy the actions or policies of another institution, while actually the two institutions are not comparable.The two institutions are comparable at every critical aspect.Incomplete comparison, changing scopeIn the argument the author recommends A to carry out the same policies as B. but we may ask that whether A and B are similar enough at every aspect and are indeed comparable.While it is true that A and B share some common grounds onThere are still some obvious differences between themBefore A decides to copy Bs experience, the author should take these differences into account and make careful study on the comparability of the two.Incomplete comparison selective comparison ex parte informationTo point out that the author compares only selective aspects of the two subjects or provides information about only one side, and we need to know if other factors that would influence the result are equal in each case, or more detailed information about the other side.Pointing out that the comparison between the subjects might be incomplete or selective.The author hastily implies that A is superior to B in, but the comparison between A and B in incomplete, the author only compare however, there are myriad of factors which, if differ in these cases, would bring about totally different result for the comparison.To fully evaluate the of A and B, the author should provide more concrete evidence about other factors that would influence the result while ignored by the author in the argument.Without any further consideration about these factors, the author could not convince us that A is better than B, merely based on incomplete comparison.Confusing comparison and variationThe author provides only the variation about certain subject on certain aspect, while in fact, the comparison between the subject and its counterparts in needed to evaluated the argument, or vice versa.Lack of controlled experiment, incomplete informationPointing out that the author provides only the variation of certain subject, or vice versa.The author provides the variation in to illustrate thatAlthough the variation in could partly indicateWe all know that to demonstrate the comparison between A and B is actually more convincing and necessaryThe author should provide the comparison between those entities to illustrate the conclusion lacking comparison between we could not assess ifUnrelated conceptsThe author uses term A to infer term B while actually there is no direct logical relationship between the two termsIn illustrating the assumption that the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalizationThe author mentions A however A is not a good indication of BThere are fundamental differences between A and B thus A could not be used to properly illustrate BThe author ought to make careful and clear differentiation between A and B before we could evaluate if the inference that is justified.Changing scopesThe argument generalize from the condition of some individual cases to a general principal or conclusion which is intended to be applied to a wider range of subjects, or reversely, applies the condition or characteristics of certain general group to some group to some individual cases in that groupTo fully evaluate the argument we may well ask that whether the condition of an individual case could sufficiently illustrate the condition of a larger group of subjectsAlthough the authors inference that might be true for some cases, for exampleUnfortunately, this is not true of every individual in the general groupOther subjects may have totally different situation thus the authors inference could not be properly applied to themUnless the author can demonstrate that the condition of other subjects is similar to that of the case studied, the conclusion cannot be reached basing on special and limited cases.Inferring a future condition from a past conditionThe author suggests that we can solve current problems or achieve current goals through methods which successfully solved the same kind of problems in the past.A hidden assumption behind the argument is that all conditions and factors upon which the effectiveness of the method depends have remained unchanged during the pastHowever, many factors could have been changedMany conditions and factors could have varied which might render the solution which were proved to be effective in the past ineffective in present time or in the futureWithout taking into account all these changing factors, the author could not convince us that the proposed solution could be effective in solving current problemsFailing to weigh the advantage and disadvantage thoroughlyThe author overemphasizes the advantage of certain action, while ignores the opposite effect. Specifically the author hastily advocates adopting certain actions. While in fact, that series of actions might bring about undesirable consequences or the author hastily proposes to abandon certain actions, while those actions might actually bring about benefits.In claiming that, the author needs to do comprehensive research on both positive and negative effects of the proposalAlthough the proposal could solve the problem to a certain degree,Carrying out the proposal could actually bring about more harmful effectsUnder such scenario, adopting the authors proposal would harm rather than benefitFalse dilemmaIn explaining , the author is presenting a false dilemma.The author simply assumes that the situation would be either A or B, while the two are not necessarily mutually exclusiveMany other solutions could exist or could be more reasonable.Before ruling out all the possibilities above, the author could not convince us that there are only two possible explanations for us to acceptNon causal relationshipThe author unfairly assumes that it is that resulted in But we find no concrete evidence to substantiate the inevitable relationship between and Many other factors could also lead to the result the author should conduct controlled study to demonstrate the causal relationshipIn short, the author could not hastily conclude that is the only possible reason for before taking the above factors into accountConfusing the cause and the effectIn the process of reasoning the author implies that A is the reason for B.However, the author may confuse the cause and the effect.The author fails to rule out the possibility that Without adequately taking this possibility into account, the assumption that is untenable.The confusing concurrence with causalityTo point out that there is no substantial evidence that could prove the causal relationship or to point out that there are many other alternative explanation which could also explain the result or to point out that the comparison between counterparts should be conducted to substantiate the causal relationshipThe most important problem is the underlying assumption that it is that resulted in The author only points out that the two events occurred during the same periodHowever we all know that merely a coincidence of two events could not sufficiently demonstrate a causal relationship between themMany other factors could also lead to the result the author should conduct controlled study to demonstrate the causal relationshipWithout ruling out such factors we could not be convinced that is the actual cause of Post hoc, ergo propter hocThe author assumes thatis responsible forbasing on the mere fact that occurred afterhowever, the sequence of the two events in itself does not sufficiently prove that the former caused the laterMany other factors could also lead to the resultmight have resulted from other factors such asWithout ruling out these possible scenarios, the author could not establish a causal relationship between andSufficiency and necessity of a solutionThe author proposes a solution to attain certain objective while in fact the solution is neither sufficient nor necessary for the purpose.The author assumes that the proposed actions are both sufficient and necessary for attaining certain objectiveAdopting the action alone, however, may not ensure solving the problemTo attain the authors objective, many other fundamental requirements must be fulfilled.Furthermore, other available methods besides the authors proposal could also be used to achieve the same goalBefore the author makes thorough comparison between the effectiveness of his own proposal and other possible methods, the authors proposal should not be hastily carried out.Failing to consider the feasibility of the conclusionThe solution could not be smoothly carried out due to some obstaclesThe feasibility of the augers proposal can also be cast doubt on.The proposal relies on an assumption that the proposal could be successfully carried out however the assumption might be unwarranted due to some obstacles.Unless the author could demonstrate that those obstacles could be effectively overcome, the proposal might be practically unfeasible.Insufficient evidenceThe evidence provided by the author is insufficient to reach the conclusion.The author treats a lack of proof that as constituting sufficient proof that , for the author only points out thatAlthough the information provided by the author may have little relation withThis piece of information in itself is far from sufficient to demonstrate the assumption thatWe need more important information about the case studied.Unwarranted assumption credibility of the evidence.The evidence in the argument lacks credibility, or the author provides no effective evidence to substantiate the assumptionThe assumption that is open to doubt.Since the author does not provide any evidence to substantiate the assumption, many other possibilities might render the assumption suspect.Given other possibilities about the author could not hastily assume thatDefinition critiqueDefinition of certain critical term in the argument is vague, or the term has no essential logical relation with the conclusion.One problem involves how author definesThe definition might be different from what we commonly consider the term to be.As we commonly accept, the term usually means a meaning other that the authors understanding.Therefore, if the term is defined as other ways, the evidence cited by the author is irrelevant to the authors conclusion.In one word, without a clear definition of , it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.Negative evidenceThe author cites the evidence that to convince us thatHowever, this piece of evidence may well prove an opposite situation and could seve to refute the authors assumption. The author should provide more convincing evidence to reconcilethis apparent self-contradictory claim.Profit-cost analysisThe author hastily claims that we could earn great profits by adopting certain proposal, but fails to analyze the possible cost of doing so.Even if the authors proposal could be carried out effectively, we still could not hastily assume that will necessarily earn a substantial profit, as the author predicted.To evaluate the profitability