GRE作文范文 Argument-20

"All students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

In this argument, the writer argues that all students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. The writer's reasoning is based on several accidents in and around Centerville over the past two years that involved teenage drivers, and that parents have complained that they are too busy to teach their own teenagers to drive. The writer also states that although there are two driving schools in Centerville, some parents cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. The writer's argument is based on faulty logic and suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the writer cites several accidents over the past two years in and around Centerville involving teenagers as evidence that they should be required to take a driver's education course at the high school. The writer assumes that these accidents were caused by the teenagers' lack of driver's education, which may or may not be the case. There is no evidence presented that directly shows a causal link between the teenagers' lack of driver's education and the cause of the accidents. It is entirely possible that these teenagers had already had the driver's education courses, and that the accidents were simply unavoidable or even the other driver's fault. Without further direct causal evidence, the writer's argument fails to convince that all teenagers should be required to take the driver's education course.

Secondly, the writer produces no evidence that shows a direct link between the driver's education course at Centerville High School and the prevention of accidents involving teenage drivers. The writer assumes such a causal linkage but delivers nothing other than his or her personal opinion as evidence that the driver's education course helps prevent accidents. Furthermore, the writer states that all students should be required to take the driver's education course. The writer fails to take into consideration students that do not drive, as well as students that may have already taken a driver's education course elsewhere. Even assuming the value of the high school's driver's education course, there will obviously be no reduction in teenagers' accidents if the students do not drive in the first place. Additionally, it is doubtful that repeating the driver's education course will result in any further reduction in accidents involving teenagers. For these reasons, the writer's argument again falls short of convincing the reader of the value of mandatory high school driver's education.

Finally, the writer states that an effective and mandatory driver's education program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem. Again, the writer falsely assumes that the only cause of such accidents is the lack of teenagers' driver's education, for which there is no support whatsoever in the argument. A better course of action would be to determine the true cause of such accidents, then tailor a solution to address the specific causes of the problem, rather than imposing a mandatory driver's education program on all students. Perhaps mandatory driver's education for all drivers would be a better solution, but there is no basis present in the argument on which to single out students and their lack of driver's education as the source of the problem of accidents in Centerville.

In summary, the writer's argument looks logical at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic. There is no evidence presented that a lack of driver's education for students is the cause of the problem in Centerville; therefore there is no basis for forcing all students to take the program. To strengthen the argument, the writer should show a direct correlation between the automobile accidents and a lack of driver's education among Centerville High School students. Without such evidence, the argument is groundless.

(632 words)

參考譯文

下文出自一封致森特維爾鎮(zhèn)學校董事會的信函：

"所有在森特維爾高中就讀的學生，都要求修司機教育課程。在過去的兩年里，在森特維爾鎮(zhèn)內(nèi)或周圍所發(fā)生的幾起事故，都是十多歲的青少年司機。由于森特維爾的一些父母抱怨說，他們太忙不能教他們十幾歲的孩子開車，因此其它某個機構(gòu)就有必要采取措施保證這些十幾歲的司機是安全的。盡管在林特維爾有兩所司機學校，但是經(jīng)濟拮據(jù)的父母付不起學習開車的費用，因此，我們高中開設一門有效的且必修的課程，是解決該嚴重問題的唯一辦法。"

在這一論點中，作者聲稱所有在森特維爾高中就讀的學生都應該修司機教育課程。作者推理的基礎是，在森特維爾鎮(zhèn)內(nèi)和周圍過去兩年多十幾歲司機所發(fā)生的事故，以及父母抱怨說他們太忙而沒有時間教他們十幾歲的孩子開車。作者還提到，盡管森特維爾鎮(zhèn)有兩所司機學校，但有些父母付不起學開車的費用。作者的論點是建立在錯誤的邏輯基礎上的，而且有幾處關鍵的問題。

首先，作者引用過去的兩年里在森特維爾鎮(zhèn)及其周圍地區(qū)十幾歲司機所發(fā)生的幾起事故作為要求他們在高中修司機教育課程的根據(jù)。作者假定，這些事故是因為十幾歲的青少年缺乏司機教育而導致的。這可能是也可能不是真正的原因。論證過程中并沒有提供證據(jù)表明十幾歲的青少年缺乏司機教育與事故原因之間的因果關系。極有可能這些十幾歲的青年已經(jīng)修了司機教育課程，而事故完全是不可避免的，或者完全是其他司機的責任。由于沒有進一步直接的因果關系，作者的論點不能被人相信所有十幾歲的青少年都必須修司機教育課程。

其次，作者沒有提供證據(jù)表明森特維爾中學開設司機教育課程與防止十幾歲的司機發(fā)生事故的直接聯(lián)系。作者假定了這樣一種因果關系，并且僅僅用他/她自己的觀點來證明司機教育課程有助于防止事故。再者，作者說道，所有的學生應該修司機教育課程。作者沒有考慮到那些不開車的學生以及那些在其他地方已經(jīng)修過司機課程的學生。甚至，僅僅開設高中司機教育課程，并不會明顯地減少十幾歲司機的事故，倘若學生根本就不開車。加之，令人懷疑的是，重申司機教育課程將能進一步減少十幾歲司機的事故。由以上理由可見，作者的論證再次沒能使讀者相信在高中開設司機教育必修課的價值。 最后，作者聲稱，在高中開設有效的、必修的司機教育課程，是唯一解決這一嚴重問題的方法。這里，作者又錯誤地假定事故的原因是缺乏十幾歲司機的教育課程，但他/她并沒有在論證中提供任何證據(jù)。一個更值得采取的行動是確定此類事故的真正原因，然后制定一個解決方法以處理該問題的具體原因，而不是給所有學生強加一門司機教育必修課?；蛟S，所有司機必須接受司機訓練將是一個更好的方法，但是在論證中沒有任何的依據(jù)使我們得以確認學生及其司機教育的缺乏是森特維爾鎮(zhèn)交通事故的原因。

總之，作者的論證乍看起來似乎合乎邏輯，但仔細審視就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，它基于錯誤的邏輯推理。它沒有提供證據(jù)證明學生缺乏司機教育課程是森特維爾鎮(zhèn)事故的原因;因此沒有理由強迫所有學生修學該課程。若要使該論證更具力度，作者應該提供汽車事故與森特維爾鎮(zhèn)高中缺乏司機教育之間的直接聯(lián)系。沒有這樣的證據(jù)，論證成為無根之木、無源之水。