GMAT考試寫作指導：Argument范文八十
10. The conclusion in this argument is that the state legislature need not consider the
views of protesting students. To support this conclusion, the author points out that only
200 of the 12,000 students traveled to the state capitol to voice their concerns about
proposed cuts in college programs. Since the remaining students did not take part in this
protest, the author concludes they are not interested in this issue. The reasoning in this
argument is flawed for two reasons.
First, the author assumes that because only one-tenth of the students took part in
the protest, these students views are unrepresentative of the entire student body. This
assumption is unwarranted. If it turns out, for example, that the protesting students were
randomly selected from the entire student body, their views would reflect the views of
the entire college. Without information regarding the way in which the protesting
students were selected, it is presumptuous to conclude that their opinions fail to reflect
the opinions of their colleagues.
Second, the author cites the fact that the remaining 12,000 students stayed on
campus or left for winter break as evidence that they are not concerned about their
education. One obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that the students who did
not participate did so when they that their concerns would be expressed by the
protesting students. In any case, the author has failed to demonstrate a logical
connection between the students alleged lack of concern and the fact that they either
stayed on campus or left for winter break. Without this connection, the conclusion
reached by the author that the remaining 12,000 students are not concerned about their
education is unacceptable.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable,
the author would have to demonstrate that the protesting students had some
characteristic in common that biases their views, thereby nullifying their protest as
representative of the entire college.
10. The conclusion in this argument is that the state legislature need not consider the
views of protesting students. To support this conclusion, the author points out that only
200 of the 12,000 students traveled to the state capitol to voice their concerns about
proposed cuts in college programs. Since the remaining students did not take part in this
protest, the author concludes they are not interested in this issue. The reasoning in this
argument is flawed for two reasons.
First, the author assumes that because only one-tenth of the students took part in
the protest, these students views are unrepresentative of the entire student body. This
assumption is unwarranted. If it turns out, for example, that the protesting students were
randomly selected from the entire student body, their views would reflect the views of
the entire college. Without information regarding the way in which the protesting
students were selected, it is presumptuous to conclude that their opinions fail to reflect
the opinions of their colleagues.
Second, the author cites the fact that the remaining 12,000 students stayed on
campus or left for winter break as evidence that they are not concerned about their
education. One obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that the students who did
not participate did so when they that their concerns would be expressed by the
protesting students. In any case, the author has failed to demonstrate a logical
connection between the students alleged lack of concern and the fact that they either
stayed on campus or left for winter break. Without this connection, the conclusion
reached by the author that the remaining 12,000 students are not concerned about their
education is unacceptable.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable,
the author would have to demonstrate that the protesting students had some
characteristic in common that biases their views, thereby nullifying their protest as
representative of the entire college.
