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."

嘉文博译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)

参考译文

下文出自一封致森特维尔镇学校董事会的信函：

"所有在森特维尔高中就读的学生，都要求修司机教育课程。在过去的两年里，在森特维尔镇内或周围所发生的几起事故，都是十多岁的青少年司机。由于森特维尔的一些父母抱怨说，他们太忙不能教他们十几岁的孩子开车，因此其它某个机构就有必要采取措施保证这些十几岁的司机是安全的。尽管在林特维尔有两所司机学校，但是经济拮据的父母付不起学习开车的费用，因此，我们高中开设一门有效的且必修的课程，是解决该严重问题的唯一办法。"

在这一论点中，作者声称所有在森特维尔高中就读的学生都应该修司机教育课程。作者推理的基础是，在森特维尔镇内和周围过去两年多十几岁司机所发生的事故，以及父母抱怨说他们太忙而没有时间教他们十几岁的孩子开车。作者还提到，尽管森特维尔镇有两所司机学校，但有些父母付不起学开车的费用。作者的论点是建立在错误的逻辑基础上的，而且有几处关键的问题。

首先，作者引用过去的两年里在森特维尔镇及其周围地区十几岁司机所发生的几起事故作为要求他们在高中修司机教育课程的根据。作者假定，这些事故是因为十几岁的青少年缺乏司机教育而导致的。这可能是也可能不是真正的原因。论证过程中并没有提供证据表明十几岁的青少年缺乏司机教育与事故原因之间的因果关系。极有可能这些十几岁的青年已经修了司机教育课程，而事故完全是不可避免的，或者完全是其他司机的责任。由于没有进一步直接的因果关系，作者的论点不能被人相信所有十几岁的青少年都必须修司机教育课程。

其次，作者没有提供证据表明森特维尔中学开设司机教育课程与防止十几岁的司机发生事故的直接联系。作者假定了这样一种因果关系，并且仅仅用他/她自己的观点来证明司机教育课程有助于防止事故。再者，作者说道，所有的学生应该修司机教育课程。作者没有考虑到那些不开车的学生以及那些在其他地方已经修过司机课程的学生。甚至，仅仅开设高中司机教育课程，并不会明显地减少十几岁司机的事故，倘若学生根本就不开车。加之，令人怀疑的是，重申司机教育课程将能进一步减少十几岁司机的事故。由以上理由可见，作者的论证再次没能使读者相信在高中开设司机教育必修课的价值。 最后，作者声称，在高中开设有效的、必修的司机教育课程，是唯一解决这一严重问题的方法。这里，作者又错误地假定事故的原因是缺乏十几岁司机的教育课程，但他/她并没有在论证中提供任何证据。一个更值得采取的行动是确定此类事故的真正原因，然后制定一个解决方法以处理该问题的具体原因，而不是给所有学生强加一门司机教育必修课。或许，所有司机必须接受司机训练将是一个更好的方法，但是在论证中没有任何的依据使我们得以确认学生及其司机教育的缺乏是森特维尔镇交通事故的原因。

总之，作者的论证乍看起来似乎合乎逻辑，但仔细审视就会发现，它基于错误的逻辑推理。它没有提供证据证明学生缺乏司机教育课程是森特维尔镇事故的原因;因此没有理由强迫所有学生修学该课程。若要使该论证更具力度，作者应该提供汽车事故与森特维尔镇高中缺乏司机教育之间的直接联系。没有这样的证据，论证成为无根之木、无源之水。