GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT真题满分范文分享：distinguish butter from margarine

北京GRE培训,GRE备考资料,GRE网课,GRE培训机构,GRE保分班,GRE真题,GRE课程

GRE作文虽然有官方题库，但题目总数太多让考生难以做到全部练一遍，因此看完题目直接看对应的高分范文学习写法思路就成为了更有效率的做法。下面小编就来为大家提供ARGUMENT题库高频作文题目的满分范文赏析。

GRE作文官方题库ARGUMENT题目：

The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants:

"Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little impact on our customers. In fact, only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine."

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

【满分范文赏析】

The author argues that Happy Pancake House (HPH) customers are unable to distinguish between butter and margarine or they do not care that they are being served margarine instead of butter. To support the argument, the speaker points out that the HPH's southwestern restaurants, which now serve margarine instead of butter, only received a total of 2% consumer complaints. The author indicates that reports from servers show customers asking for butter have not complained when given margarine instead. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

【本段结构】

本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即CAF的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文的结论具有说服力。

【本段功能】

作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即HPH的顾客无法区分Butter和Margarine，或者他们根本就不关心他们得到的是Margarine而非Butter。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，即仅仅2%的顾客对这一改变提出了抱怨，并且根据服务员的报告，当得到的是Margarine而非Butter的时候，顾客们并没有抱怨。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。

Firstly, the speaker does not indicate the length of time that these restaurants have been refusing margarine to customers. If the change is a very recent one, it is possible that insufficient data have been collected to draw any reliable conclusions. So, without the certainty of trustworthy data, conclusions should not be drawn.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

【本段功能】

作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误样本类错误。如果这个餐厅采取的这个改变是最近才发生的，那么可能顾客们还能短时间内忍受，因此很少抱怨。但如果时间久了，抱怨的人可能逐渐增多。换句话说，在仅仅很短时间里采取的样本并不充分的情况下，原文的关于顾客并没有抱怨的结论是不合理的。

Thirdly, the speaker assumes that HPH customers unhappy with the change generally complain about it. Maybe instead of expressing displeasure, customers simply don’t return. Since we don’t know how many, if any people simply walked away from the pancake fiasco without so much as offering a word, one simply cannot rely on a low amount of complaints as a total indicator that there is no problem with the policy. Two additional problems involve the reports from "many" servers that "a number" of customers asking for butter do not complain when served margarine instead. These vague generalities are not helpful in the formulation of an argument.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

【本段功能】

作为正文第三段，本段攻击原文所犯的第三个重要逻辑错误样本类错误。原文提到只有2%的人会抱怨HPH的这个改变，这意味着剩下的98%的人不会抱怨。但事实上，很有可能是因为这些顾客只是不愿意说出来罢了。此外，服务员的关于顾客抱怨的Report也不是很有说服力。因此，原文并不能证明的确是很少顾客抱怨HPH的这个改变。

In sum, the speaker's argument requires further development. To better assess the situation before making a recommendation, an audience would need to know: (1) how long the change has been in effect in the Southwest, (2) what percentage of HPH servers and managers have received customer complaints about the change, and (3) the number of such complaints as a percentage of the total number of HPH customers who order meals calling for either butter or margarine. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must provide clear evidence that HPH customers in all other regions are likely to be happy with the change and continue to patronize HPH thereafter.

【本段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即CS的结尾结构。首先再次重申原文Conclusion是站不住脚的，接下来给出可以增强原文说服力的合理的Suggestion，包括原文作者需要进一步提供的证据和细节信息等。

【本段功能】

本段作为结尾段，具体功能即为总结归纳+提出建议。段落首先再次重申强调原文作者的论证不合理，接下来给出合理的建议：这个改变发生了多久，顾客抱怨的实际百分比是多少，以及在其它地区的顾客对于这种改变的态度是什么。只有在全面考虑这些问题后，原文才能更有说服力。此外不难发现，结尾段总结提出的建议与正文各段中依次攻击的错误遥相呼应，即分别对应了样本类错误和类比类错误，这使全篇文章显得浑然一体。