2026年GRE《写作》考试真题(完整版)

2026年GRE《写作》考试真题(完整版)Section1:AnalyzeanIssueTaskTopic1:Thebestwaytounderstandthecharacterofasocietyistoexaminethecharacterofthemenandwomenthatthesocietychoosesasitsheroesoritsrolemodels.Writearesponseinwhichyoudiscusstheextenttowhichyouagreeordisagreewiththerecommendation.Thebestwaytounderstandthecharacterofasocietyistoexaminethecharacterofthemenandwomenthatthesocietychoosesasitsheroesoritsrolemodels.【参考范文】Theassertionthatthecharacterofasocietycanbestbeunderstoodbyexaminingitschosenheroesandrolemodelsisacompellingone,suggestingthatasociety’sidealsareembodiedinthefiguresitreveres.WhileIagreethatheroesandrolemodelsofferavaluablewindowintosocietalvalues,relyingsolelyonthemprovidesanincomplete,andsometimesdistorted,pictureofasociety'struecharacter.Aholisticunderstandingrequiresanalyzingnotonlythosewhomasocietyelevatesbutalsothemarginalizedvoices,theinstitutionalstructures,andtheeverydaybehaviorsofitscitizens.Admittedly,heroesandrolemodelsfunctionasmirrorsreflectingasociety'saspirationalself.Bydefinition,aheroisanindividualwhopossessesqualitiesthataculturedeemssuperiororworthyofemulation.Forinstance,duringtheSpaceRace,theUnitedStatesidolizedastronautslikeJohnGlennandNeilArmstrong.Thesefigureswerecelebratednotmerelyfortheirphysicalendurance,butfortheircourage,discipline,andcontributiontonationalprestige.Theirelevationtoherostatusreflectedasocietydeeplyinvestedintechnologicaladvancement,exploration,andwinningtheideologicalbattleagainsttheSovietUnion.Similarly,incontemporarytimes,theshifttowardreveringtechentrepreneurslikeElonMuskorinnovatorsinsustainableenergysignalsasocietalpivottowardvaluingdisruption,efficiency,andenvironmentalurgency.Inthissense,the"who"ofourreverencerevealsthe"what"ofourcollectivepriorities.However,thecharacterofasocietyisnotdefinedsolelybyitsaspirations,butalsobyitsrealitiesanditsvices.Heroesoftenrepresentanidealizedversionoftheself,glossingoverthecomplexitiesandcontradictionsoftheactualsocialfabric.Asocietymightpubliclyveneratefiguresofcharityandcompassionwhilesimultaneouslytoleratingsystemicinequalityorharshindividualisminitseconomicpolicies.Forexample,anationmightworshipsportingheroeswhoembodyteamworkandfairplay,yetitspoliticaldiscoursemightbecharacterizedbyextremepolarizationandarefusaltocompromise.Thehero,inthiscontext,servesasakindofpsychologicalsafetyvalve,allowingthesocietytofeelgoodaboutitsvalueswithoutnecessarilyhavingtoenactthemindifficult,mundanecircumstances.Therefore,examiningheroescanrevealwhatasocietywantstobe,notnecessarilywhatitis.However,thecharacterofasocietyisnotdefinedsolelybyitsaspirations,butalsobyitsrealitiesanditsvices.Heroesoftenrepresentanidealizedversionoftheself,glossingoverthecomplexitiesandcontradictionsoftheactualsocialfabric.Asocietymightpubliclyveneratefiguresofcharityandcompassionwhilesimultaneouslytoleratingsystemicinequalityorharshindividualisminitseconomicpolicies.Forexample,anationmightworshipsportingheroeswhoembodyteamworkandfairplay,yetitspoliticaldiscoursemightbecharacterizedbyextremepolarizationandarefusaltocompromise.Thehero,inthiscontext,servesasakindofpsychologicalsafetyvalve,allowingthesocietytofeelgoodaboutitsvalueswithoutnecessarilyhavingtoenactthemindifficult,mundanecircumstances.Therefore,examiningheroescanrevealwhatasocietywantstobe,notnecessarilywhatitis.Furthermore,theselectionofheroesisofteninfluencedbypowerdynamics,medianarratives,andhistoricalamnesia,ratherthanapuredemocraticconsensus.The"heroes"presentedtothepublicarefrequentlythosewhoupholdthestatusquoortheinterestsofthedominantelite.Ifasociety’scharacterisjudgedonlybyitsstate-sanctionedheroes,weriskseeingapolishedfaçaderatherthanthestructuralfoundation.Totrulyunderstandasociety,onemustlookatwhoisnotchosenasahero—thedissidents,thewhistleblowers,orthemarginalizedartistswhochallengetheprevailingorder.Asocietythattreatsitstruth-tellersaspariahs,forinstance,revealsacharacterdeeplyfearfuloftransparencyandchange,regardlessofhowmanybenevolentleadersitparades.Furthermore,theselectionofheroesisofteninfluencedbypowerdynamics,medianarratives,andhistoricalamnesia,ratherthanapuredemocraticconsensus.The"heroes"presentedtothepublicarefrequentlythosewhoupholdthestatusquoortheinterestsofthedominantelite.Ifasociety’scharacterisjudgedonlybyitsstate-sanctionedheroes,weriskseeingapolishedfaçaderatherthanthestructuralfoundation.Totrulyunderstandasociety,onemustlookatwhoisnotchosenasahero—thedissidents,thewhistleblowers,orthemarginalizedartistswhochallengetheprevailingorder.Asocietythattreatsitstruth-tellersaspariahs,forinstance,revealsacharacterdeeplyfearfuloftransparencyandchange,regardlessofhowmanybenevolentleadersitparades.Moreover,thetruecharacterofasocietyisperhapsmostvividlydisplayedinthe"smallplaces,"touseJamesBaldwin'sphrase,ratherthaninthegrandgesturesofheroes.Itisfoundinhowstrangerstreatoneanotherinacrisis,howcitizensvoteinlocalelections,howcorporationstreattheirlowest-paidworkers,andhowthecriminaljusticesystemtreatstheaccused.Thesedailyinteractionsandsystemicoperationsconstitutethemoralsubstrateofasociety.Whileaheromightperformasuperhumanactofgenerosity,thecharacterofthesocietyisbettertestedbytheaverageperson'sadherencetosocialcontractswhennooneiswatching.Ifasocietypridesitselfonaherowhosavedachildfromaburningbuilding,butignoresthesafetyregulationsthatmadethebuildingunsafeinthefirstplace,itscharacterisflaweddespitetheheroicact.Inconclusion,whileexaminingheroesandrolemodelsprovidesacrucialstartingpointforunderstandingasociety’sstatedvaluesandambitions,itisinsufficientforacompletediagnosisofitscharacter.Asocietyistoocomplextobesummarizedbyitsbrighteststars.Totrulygrasptheessenceofanationorculture,onemustlookbeyondthepedestalandinvestigatetheshadowsofsystemicinequality,thequietrealitiesofdailylife,andthetreatmentofthosewhodonotconformtotheidealizedimage.Onlybysynthesizingtheidealwiththerealcanweunderstandthetruecharacterofasociety.【题目解析】这道题目属于GRE写作中经典的“社会与价值观”类话题。题目的核心在于探讨“通过英雄和榜样来理解社会性格”这一方法的有效性。高分范文采用了辩证的思维结构，即“让步-反驳-深化”。1.立论：文章首先承认了题目的合理性。英雄确实反映了社会的“渴望”和“优先事项”。文章通过宇航员和科技企业家的例子，论证了不同时代的英雄反映了当时社会的主流价值观（如冷战时期的科技竞争，现代对环保和创新的重视）。2.驳论：接着，文章指出英雄往往代表的是“理想化的自我”，而非“真实的自我”。社会可能崇拜慈善英雄，却在现实中推行残酷的竞争政策。这里引入了“愿望与现实”的矛盾。3.深化：文章进一步指出，英雄的产生往往受制于权力和媒体，未必代表全民共识。更重要的是，要看“谁没有被选为英雄”（如吹哨人），这能揭示社会的阴暗面或恐惧点。4.补充视角：最后，文章提出社会的真实性格更多体现在“微小之处”和“日常行为”中，而非英雄的宏大叙事。制度如何对待弱者、普通人的公德心，这些才是社会性格的基石。整篇文章逻辑严密，词汇丰富（如aspirationalself,psychologicalsafetyvalve,structuralfoundation,moralsubstrate），论证层层递进，符合GRE6分作文的标准。整篇文章逻辑严密，词汇丰富（如aspirationalself,psychologicalsafetyvalve,structuralfoundation,moralsubstrate），论证层层递进，符合GRE6分作文的标准。Topic2:Governmentsshouldplacefew,ifany,restrictionsonscientificresearchanddevelopment.Writearesponseinwhichyoudiscusstheextenttowhichyouagreeordisagreewiththerecommendation.Towhatextentshouldgovernmentsrestrictscientificresearchanddevelopment?【参考范文】Therecommendationthatgovernmentsshouldplacefew,ifany,restrictionsonscientificresearchanddevelopmentisrootedinalibertarianidealofintellectualfreedomandthebeliefthatinnovationdriveshumanprogress.Whilethespiritofunrestrictedinquiryisvitalforscientificadvancement,theassertionthatthereshouldbe"few,ifany"restrictionsisdangerouslynaive.Scientificresearchdoesnotoccurinavacuum;itsapplicationshaveprofound,oftenirreversible,impactsonhumanityandtheenvironment.Therefore,whilegovernmentsshouldavoidstiflingcuriosityorpoliticizingbasicscience,theyhaveamoralandpragmaticobligationtoimposerestrictionswhereresearchposessignificantethical,safety,orexistentialthreats.Proponentsofunrestrictedresearcharguethatthehistoryofscienceisrepletewithexampleswheredogmaticorpoliticalinterferencehaltedprogress.FromtheCatholicChurch’spersecutionofGalileototheSovietUnion’sendorsementofLysenkoism,whichsetgeneticsbackdecades,thelessonisclear:whenthestatedictateswhatconstitutestruth,innovationsuffers.Inamoderncontext,over-regulationcanstifleeconomiccompetitivenessandslowthedevelopmentoflife-savingtechnologies.Ifeveryavenueofinquiryrequiredpriorgovernmentapproval,theserendipitousnatureofdiscovery—the"happyaccidents"thatleadtobreakthroughslikepenicillin—wouldbevirtuallyeliminated.Fromthisperspective,thebestroleforgovernmentistofundresearchandstepoutoftheway.However,thisviewfailstoaccountfortheunprecedentedpowerofmoderntechnology.Inthe21stcentury,scientificcapabilitieshaveoutpacedourmoralandregulatoryframeworks.Considertherealmofbioengineering.TheeaseofCRISPRgene-editingtechnologyhasbroughtustothebrinkofafuturewhere"designerbabies"arepossible.Withoutstrictgovernmentrestrictionsonheritablegermlineediting,weriskcreatingabiologicalcastesystemwherethewealthycanpurchasegeneticadvantagesfortheiroffspring,exacerbatingsocialinequalitytoabiologicallevel.Furthermore,unintendedconsequencesinthegenepoolcouldbeirreversible.Here,alackofrestrictionisnotfreedom;itisagamblewiththefutureofthehumanspecies.Similarly,inthefieldofartificialintelligence,unrestricteddevelopmentposesexistentialrisks.Theracetodevelopautonomousweaponssystemsorartificialgeneralintelligenceisoftendrivenbymilitaryandcorporateimperativesratherthanthepublicgood.Ifgovernmentsdonotstrictlyregulatethedevelopmentoflethalautonomousweapons,weriskcreatingaglobalsecurityenvironmentwherealgorithmsmakelife-or-deathdecisionswithouthumanaccountability.Theargumentfor"fewrestrictions"crumbleswhenthepotentialcostofasinglemistakeisthelossofhumanlifeonamassivescale.Moreover,scientificresearchofteninvolvesexternalitiesthataffectthosewhohavenosayintheprocess.Environmentalreleaseofgeneticallymodifiedorganisms(GMOs)orgeoengineeringexperimentstocombatclimatechangecanhavetransboundaryeffects.Aprivatecorporationorasinglenationpursuingunrestrictedresearchmightaltertheecosysteminwaysthatharmneighboringcountriesorfuturegenerations.Inthesecases,governmentrestrictionisnecessarytoenforcethe"polluterpays"principleandtoensurethattheprecautionaryprincipleisappliedwhenrisksareuncertainbutpotentiallycatastrophic.Itisalsoimportanttodistinguishbetween"basicscience"and"appliedtechnology."Governmentsshouldindeedplaceveryfewrestrictionsonthepursuitofknowledge—astronomy,theoreticalphysics,orpaleontologyrarelyposeimmediatethreats.However,themomentresearchtranslatesintotechnologywithdirectsocietalapplication—beitavirus,aweapon,orasurveillancetool—itenterstherealmofpublicpolicyandrequiresgovernance.Inconclusion,whiletheunfetteredpursuitofknowledgeisanobleideal,therealityofmodernsciencenecessitatesrobustoversight.Therecommendationfor"few,ifany"restrictionsfailstobalancethebenefitsofinnovationwiththenecessitiesofpublicsafety,ethicalstandards,andsocialjustice.Governmentsmustactasprudentstewards,fosteringanenvironmentwheresciencecanflourishwhileerectingguardrailstopreventitfromdrivingusoffacliff.Freedominresearchmustbecoupledwithresponsibilityinapplication.【题目解析】这道题目探讨的是“政府管制与科学研究”的关系，属于“政策与政府职能”类话题。范文采用了经典的分类讨论法，将科学研究分为“基础理论”和“应用技术”，并针对不同领域提出不同的管制标准。1.让步：文章首先承认过度管制的危害。引用了历史上伽利略和李森科主义的例子，说明政治干预科学会导致真理的倒退。同时指出，过多的审批会扼杀科学的偶然性和创造力。2.转折：随即指出，现代科技的力量已经超越了道德框架，不能放任自流。3.论点1（生物伦理）：以CRISPR基因编辑为例，论证如果没有限制，将导致生物种姓制度和不平等的固化。这里强调了“不可逆性”和“社会公平”。4.论点2（人工智能与安全）：以自主武器系统为例，论证缺乏限制可能导致生存危机和算法问责缺失。5.论点3（外部性）：讨论了环境科学和转基因技术，指出科学研究往往有外部性，影响无辜的第三方，因此政府需要代表公众利益进行干预（预防原则）。6.结论：文章最后进行了精细的区分——基础科学少管，应用技术严管。这种nuanced（细致入微的）观点是GRE高分作文的关键，避免了极端的立场。Topic3:Theluxuriesandconveniencesofcontemporarylifepreventpeoplefromdevelopingintotrulystrongandindependentindividuals.Writearesponseinwhichyoudiscusstheextenttowhichyouagreeordisagreewiththestatement.Theluxuriesandconveniencesofcontemporarylifepreventpeoplefromdevelopingintotrulystrongandindependentindividuals.【参考范文】Thestatementthattheluxuriesandconveniencesofcontemporarylifeinhibitthedevelopmentofstrongandindependentindividualsisacommoncritiqueofmodernity,oftenrootedinanostalgiaforaharder,perhapsromanticizedpast.Whileitistruethatover-relianceonconveniencecanbreedcomplacencyanddependency,theassertionisultimatelytoosweeping.Modernconveniencesdonotnecessarilyweakencharacter;rather,theyredistributethechallengesweface.Byautomatingmundanesurvivaltasks,contemporarylifecanactuallyofferindividualstheopportunitytodevelopintellectual,emotional,andmoralstrengththatwasoftensuppressedbythesheerstruggleforsubsistenceinpreviouseras.Criticsofmodernconveniencearguethattechnologyhasmadeusphysicallysoftandmentallylazy.TheadventofGPSmeanswehavelosttheabilitytonavigatebythestarsorreadaphysicalmap.Smartphonesstoreallourknowledge,sowenolongermemorizephonenumbersorhistoricaldates.Fooddeliveryappsallowustocookless.Inthisview,"strength"isdefinedbytheabilitytoendurehardshipandperformmanualtaskswithoutassistance.Ifamodernpersonweresuddenlystrippedofelectricityandtheinternet,theywouldindeedbehelplesscomparedtotheirpioneerancestors.Thisdependencyoncomplexsystemswedonotunderstandcreatesafragilitythatsuggestsalossofindependence.However,thiscritiquereliesonanarrowdefinitionof"strength"and"independence."Itconflatestheabilitytosufferwiththecapacitytothrive.Inthepre-modernworld,thevastmajorityofpeoplewerenot"independent"inanymeaningfulsense;theywereboundbythenecessityofagrariancycles,classstructures,andtheconstantthreatofdiseaseandfamine.Theirliveswerespentinback-breakinglabormerelytosurvive.Trueindependence—thefreedomtochooseone'spath,todissent,andtopursueself-actualization—wasaluxuryreservedfortheelite.Modernconvenienceshaveliberatedthemassesfromthetyrannyofabsolutesurvival.Byshorteningthetimeneededforhouseholdchoresandtravel,technologyhasgrantedpeopletime—themostpreciousresource.Thistimecanbeinvestedineducation,artisticpursuits,politicalactivism,ordeepeninginterpersonalrelationships.Furthermore,contemporarylifepresentsnew,perhapsmorecomplex,arenasfordevelopingstrength.Mentalresilienceisnowtestednotbyharvestingcropsbeforeastorm,butbynavigatingthedelugeofinformationinthedigitalage,maintainingfocusinaneconomyofdistraction,andmanagingthepsychologicalpressuresofahyper-connectedworld.Independencetodayisnotaboutchoppingwood;itisaboutcriticalthinking.Itistheabilitytodiscerntruthfrommisinformation,tocodeone'sownsoftwareratherthanjustuseit,andtomaintainethicalstandardsinaglobalizedeconomy.Theseareformsofstrengththatarearguablymorerelevanttothe21stcenturythanphysicalendurance.Moreover,thecomplexityofmodernsystemsactuallyrequiresahigherformofinterdependence,whichisdistinctfromsimpledependency.Noindividualcanbuildasmartphoneorapowergridfromscratch.Werelyonavastnetworkofstrangers.Whilethislookslikedependency,italsorequiresahighdegreeofsocialcooperationandtrust.Beinga"strongindividual"inmodernsocietyoftenmeanstheabilitytocollaborateeffectively,tounderstandcomplexsystems,andtocontributetoacollectiveeffort.Thesolitaryfrontiersmanisapoormodelforsuccessinaworlddefinedbydatanetworksandglobalsupplychains.Admittedly,thedangerexiststhatifwepassivelyconsumeconveniencewithoutengagingwiththeunderlyingsystems,webecome"couchpotatoes"—physicallylethargicandintellectuallyincurious.Ifweallowalgorithmstocurateournews,chooseourentertainment,anddriveourcars,weriskatrophyingourdecision-makingfaculties.Thekeyisnottorejectconveniences,buttousethemastoolsforempowermentratherthancrutchesforexistence.Apersonwhousesadishwashertosavetimetowriteabookorlearnalanguageisarguablystrongerandmoreindependentthanonewhospendshourswashingdishesbyhandoutofasenseofmoralduty.Inconclusion,theluxuriesofcontemporarylifedonotinherentlypreventpeoplefrombecomingstrongandindependentindividuals.Theyhaveremovedthephysicalhardshipsthatdefinedstrengthinthepast,buttheyhaveopenedthedoortointellectualandpsychologicalgrowth.Strengthisnotstatic;itevolveswiththehumancondition.Byleveragingmodernconveniencestotranscendthestruggleforsurvival,wehavethepotentialtobecomestrongerinmindandmoreindependentinspirit,providedweremainactivemastersofourtoolsratherthanpassiveservantstothem.【题目解析】这道题目属于“现代生活与传统价值观”的对比。范文的亮点在于对核心概念“Strong”和“Independent”进行了重新定义（Redefinition），这是反驳类题目常用的策略。1.让步：承认现代生活确实导致了一些技能的退化（如导航、记忆、生存技能），以及一旦系统崩溃现代人的脆弱性。2.核心反驳：文章指出，前现代人的生活并非“独立”，而是被生存需求所束缚。真正的独立是精神上的自由和自我实现。3.论点1（时间的解放）：现代便利节省了时间，使人们能够追求教育、艺术和政治参与。这是一种更高层次的“强”。4.论点2（新形式的挑战）：现代社会的挑战从体力转向了脑力（如信息筛选、专注力、批判性思维）。这些是现代意义上的“力量”。5.论点3（相互依存）：论证了现代社会的高度复杂性要求一种高级的相互依存，这不同于简单的依赖。6.结论：强调工具的中性。便利本身不让人变弱，如何使用便利才决定了人的强弱。Section2:AnalyzeanArgumentTaskTopic1:Thefollowingappearedinamemofromthevicepresidentofafoodprocessingcompany:"Ourcompanyhasexperiencedasignificantdeclineinsalesoverthepastyear.Toreversethistrend,weshouldfocusouradvertisingbudgetonthe'HealthyLiving'lineofproducts,whichincludesorganicsnacksandlow-fatmeals.Arecentsurveyofourcustomersindicatesthat75percentofrespondentsareconcernedaboutthehealthinessofthefoodtheyeat.Furthermore,aleadingcompetitor,Nutri-Foods,hasincreaseditssalesby20percentsincelaunchingasimilar'HealthyLiving'campaignsixmonthsago.Therefore,byemulatingNutri-Foods'strategy,wecanrecoverourlostmarketshare."Writearesponseinwhichyouexaminethestatedand/orunstatedassumptionsoftheargument.Besuretoexplainhowtheargumentdependsontheseassumptionsandwhattheimplicationsareiftheassumptionsproveunwarranted.【参考范文】Thevicepresidentrecommendsthatthecompanyfocusitsadvertisingbudgetonthe'HealthyLiving'linetoreversethedeclineinsales.Theargumentreliesonarecentcustomersurveyshowinghealthconcernsandthesuccessofacompetitor'ssimilarcampaign.Whilethesuggestionappearslogicalonthesurface,theargumentisflawedbecauseitrestsonseveralquestionableassumptionsregardingcustomerbehavior,productcomparability,andthecausesofthesalesdecline.First,theargumentassumesthatageneralconcernabouthealthinesstranslatesdirectlyintoapreferenceforthecompany'sspecific'HealthyLiving'products.Thesurveystatesthat75percentofcustomersareconcernedaboutthe"healthinessofthefoodtheyeat."However,thisdoesnotnecessarilymeantheywillbuythecompany'sorganicsnacksorlow-fatmeals.Consumersmaydefine"healthy"inwaysthatexcludetheseproducts—forexample,theymightpreferfresh,unprocessedfoodsoverpackaged"low-fat"meals,whichareoftenperceivedasprocessedorartificial.Alternatively,theymightbeconcernedabouthealthbutprioritizetasteorpriceoverhealthwhenmakingactualpurchasingdecisions.Withoutevidencethattheconcernleadstoapurchaseintentforthisspecificproductline,thesurveyresultsareinsufficienttojustifythebudgetshift.Second,theargumentassumesthatthesuccessofNutri-Foodsisreplicablebythiscompany.ThememonotesthatNutri-Foodsincreasedsalesby20percentafterasimilarcampaign.ThisassumesthatNutri-Foods'customerbase,brandreputation,andproductqualityarecomparabletothoseofthevicepresident'scompany.PerhapsNutri-Foodsisalreadyestablishedasapremiumhealthbrand,whereasthiscompanyisknownfortraditional,perhapslesshealthy,processedfoods.Ifthecompany'sbrandidentityisincongruentwith"HealthyLiving,"theadvertisingcampaignmayfailtopersuadeconsumers.Furthermore,theargumentassumesthatthemarketisnotsaturated;ifNutri-Foodshasalreadycapturedthehealth-conscioussegment,thiscompanymightbeenteringacrowdedmarketwherecompetitionisfierce,limitingpotentialgains.Third,theargumentassumesthatthedeclineinsalesisduetoalackoffocusonhealthyproducts.Thememocitesa"significantdeclineinsalesoverthepastyear"andproposesthehealthylineasthesolution.However,thiscouldbeafalsecausefallacy.Thesalesdeclinemightbeattributedtootherfactors,suchasaneconomicdownturn,supplychainissues,poorcustomerservice,orineffectivemarketingofexistingproducts.Iftherootcauseis,forexample,arecessionwhereconsumersaretradingdowntocheapergenericbrands,shiftingadvertisingtopremiumorganicproducts—whicharetypicallymoreexpensive—couldactuallyexacerbatethedeclinebyalienatingprice-sensitivecustomers.Fourth,theargumentassumesthatthe'HealthyLiving'lineiscurrentlyunder-advertisedorthatincreasedadvertisingwillyieldaproportionalreturnoninvestment.Itispossiblethatthecompanyisalreadyadvertisingthislineheavily,andthelackofsalesisduetoproductqualityratherthanawareness.Or,theprofitmarginsonthe'HealthyLiving'linemightbesothinthatevenincreasedsalesvolumewouldnotreversetheoverallrevenuedecline.Theargumentfocusesentirelyonsalesvolume(marketshare)andignoresprofitability,whichistheultimategoalofabusiness.Finally,theargumentreliesonthesurveyresultsbeingrepresentativeofthebroadermarket.Thememomentionsasurveyof"ourcustomers."Ifthesurveywassenttoexistingcustomers,itreflectstheviewsofpeoplewhoalreadybuythecompany'sproducts.Itdoesnotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofthenon-customersthecompanyneedstowinbacktoreverseadecline.Ifthecompanyneedstoattractnewdemographics,relyingonfeedbackfromcurrentloyalists—whomaybeagingorhavedifferentpreferences—couldbemisleading.Inconclusion,thevicepresident'sargumentisnotpersuasiveasitstands.Tostrengthentherecommendation,thememowouldneedtoprovideevidencethatthecustomers'healthconcernsspecificallyalignwiththe'HealthyLiving'productattributes,thatthecompanycaneffectivelycompetewithNutri-Foods,andthatthesalesdeclineisspecificallyduetoafailuretocapitalizeonthehealthtrendratherthanothereconomicoroperationalfactors.【题目解析】这道Argument题目考察的是典型的商业论证逻辑漏洞。范文系统地攻击了论证中的五个关键假设：1.态度与行为的脱节：调查显示人们“关心”健康，但这不代表他们会“购买”该公司的健康食品。人们可能觉得加工过的健康食品并不健康，或者因为价格、口味等原因放弃购买。2.类比不当：竞争对手Nutri-Foods的成功不一定能复制。两家公司的品牌定位可能不同（一个是传统食品公司，一个是健康食品公司），盲目模仿可能失败。3.归因错误：销售下降的原因未必是缺乏健康食品。可能是经济衰退、供应链问题等。如果是因为经济不好，推昂贵的有机食品反而可能雪上加霜。4.忽视利润率：只关注销量（市场份额），忽视了利润。健康食品销量上去了但利润极低，可能无法挽救公司的财务状况。5.样本偏差：调查对象是“现有客户”，但公司可能需要通过吸引“新客户”来扭转颓势。现有客户的意见不适用于潜在市场。Topic2:ThefollowingappearedinalettertotheeditoroftheClearviewGazette:"ThetrafficaccidentsinthetownofClearviewhaveincreasedby25percentoverthepasttwoyears,whereastheneighboringtownofMillbridgehasseenadecreaseof10percentinthesameperiod.Clearly,thedifferenceisduetothefactthatMillbridgehasamuchmorerigorousdriver'seducationprograminitshighschoolsthanClearviewdoes.ToreducetrafficaccidentsinClearview,weshouldimplementthesamerigorousdriver'seducationprograminourhighschools."Writearesponseinwhichyoudiscusswhatspecificevidenceisneededtoevaluatetheargument.Itisnecessarytoexplainhowtheevidencewouldweakenorstrengthentheargument.【题目解析】这道题目要求考生讨论“评估该论证所需的具体证据”。论证的核心结论是：为了减少交通事故，Clearview应该实施Millbridge那样严格的驾驶员教育项目。论据是：Clearview事故率上升，Millbridge下降；Millbridge有更严格的驾驶员教育。论证存在几个需要证据验证的假设：1.因果关系的唯一性：事故率的变化真的是由驾驶员教育造成的吗？还是由于路况、交通流量、执法力度、天气或人口结构的变化？所需证据：两镇的交通状况、道路质量、警力部署、人口增长数据的对比。如果Millbridge改善了道路设施，那可能是事故下降的主因。所需证据：两镇的交通状况、道路质量、警力部署、人口增长数据的对比。如果Millbridge改善了道路设施，那可能是事故下降的主因。2.项目有效性：Millbridge的项目真的有效吗？还是说参与该项目的人本来就驾驶技术更好或更谨慎？所需证据：参与过该项目的司机的实际事故率数据。所需证据：参与过该项目的司机的实际事故率数据。3.适用性：Clearview的高中生情况与Millbridge是否相似？所需证据：两镇青少年的数量、拥有车辆的比例对比。所需证据：两镇青少年的数量、拥有车辆的比例对比。4.事故主体：Clearview增加的事故是否主要由高中生造成？所需证据：Clearview事故肇事者的年龄分布。如果事故主要是由老年人或外来通勤者造成的，那么针对高中生的教育项目将毫无作用。所需证据：Clearview事故肇事者的年龄分布。如果事故主要是由老年人或外来通勤者造成的，那么针对高中生的教育项目将毫无作用。【参考范文】ThelettertotheeditorarguesthatClearviewshouldadoptMillbridge'srigorousdriver'seducationprogramtoreduceitsincreasingtrafficaccidents.TheargumentreliesonacorrelationbetweenMillbridge'sprogramanditsloweraccidentratecomparedtoClearview.However,toproperlyevaluatethisrecommendation,weneedspecificevidencetodetermineifthedriver'seducationprogramistheactualcauseofthedisparityandifitwouldbeeffectiveinClearview'scontext.First,weneedevidenceregardingthedemographicprofileofthedriversinvolvedintheaccidentsinbothtowns.TheargumentassumesthattheaccidentsinClearviewarecausedbyyoung,inexperienceddriverswhowouldbenefitfromhighschooldriver'seducation.However,iftheincreaseinaccidentsinClearviewisprimarilyamongelderlydriversorcommuterspassingthroughthetown,thenahighschooleducationprogramwouldhavelittletonoimpact.Statisticaldatashowingtheagegroupsandresidencystatusofat-faultdriversinClearviewisessential.Ifthedatashowsthatdriversover65areresponsibleformostaccidents,theargumentwouldbesignifica