虽然
Arg-10
Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. Recently another anthropologist, Dr. Karp, visited the group of islands that includes Tertia and used the interview-centered method to study child-rearing practices. In the interviews that Dr. Karp conducted with children living in this group of islands, the children spent much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. Dr. Karp decided that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture must be invalid. Some anthropologists recommend that to obtain accurate information on Tertian child-rearing practices, future research on the subject should be conducted via the interview-centered method.
【满分范文赏析】
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that children in Tertia are actually raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even, by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is less valid than an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, an audience should be provided with additional evidence.
【本段结构】
本段采用了简明的Argument开头段结构，即C—F的开头结构。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下来给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即其应提供额外的Evidence才能让观众对该Argument进行充分评价。
【本段功能】
本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即Tertia的孩子们的确是由他们的亲生父母所抚养的，并且以观察为中心的人类学研究方法不如以面试为中心的研究方法有效。本段对原文结论的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作铺垫。
The audience should know, before deciding conclusively about the appropriate methodology for further study, if Tertia has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study 20 years ago and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For example, if we had evidence suggesting that, since the original study, foreigners had settled on the island and introduced a new element that affected child rearing in Tertia, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been accurate and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第一段，攻击原文中出现的第一个重要逻辑错误——(时间上的)错误类比。在对合适的研究方法做出决定性的判断之前，观众应当被告知Tertia是否在过去的20年内发生了显著的变化。Field博士是在20年前开展了他的观察性研究，而自那时起Tertia可能发生了显著的变化。例如，我们如果有证据证明后来外国人在岛上定居并引入了一种影响了Tertia的孩子抚养方式的新因素，Karp博士的论证无疑会被削弱。在这种情形下，Field博士原先的研究可能是准确的，Karp博士的研究也可能是正确的。
Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves the exact locations where Dr. Karp’s interviews took place. According to this article, Dr. Karp and his graduate students conducted interviews of “children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia”. If we were to learn that they never interviewed a single Tertian child, it would significantly weaken the conclusion.It could turn out to be the case, for example, that children on Tertia are raised communally, whereas their biological parents raise children on other islands nearby.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第二段，攻击原文中出现的第二个重要逻辑错误——调查类错误。根据原文，Karp博士和他的研究生们对“居住于包括Tertia岛在内的一系列岛屿上的孩子们”开展了研究。如果他们从未采访过一个Tertia的孩子，其结论将被显著地削弱。例如，事实有可能是Tertia岛上的孩子们被集体抚养，而附近其它岛屿上的孩子们均由他们的亲生父母抚养。
Further, in order to fully evaluate this claim the audience needs to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used—what exactly did they ask? We don’t know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about their biological parents than they do about other adults does not mean that their biological parents had a greater role than the community did in their rearing. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing what the children said, one cannot accept the argument above without reservations.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第三段，攻击原文中出现的第三个重要逻辑错误——调查类错误。为充分评价原文中的论断，观众需要就Karp博士所采用的面试问题获得更多的信息。我们既不知道他们所问问题的具体内容，也不知道孩子们的具体答案。仅仅是孩子们更经常谈到他们的亲生父母这一事实并不意味着他们的亲生父母在抚养他们的过程中比社区占有更主要的角色。如果事实证明孩子们经常说一些诸如他们多么想念父母或者他们的父母是如何把他们留在了一个集体环境中的事情的话，Karp博士的论证将被显著地削弱。在不知道孩子们究竟说了些什么的情况下，我们不能无保留地接受原文的论证。
It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the results of his study to a conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches in the case of study in the group of islands including Tertia. In order to fully evaluate this claim one would require more examples of interview-based and observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs to provide a lot of additional evidence (ideally a meta-analysis of hundreds of anthropological studies).
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第四个逻辑错误的错误类型和其在原文中出现的位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。
【本段功能】
本段作为正文第四段，攻击原文中出现的第四个重要逻辑错误——外推类错误。在Karp博士的文章中，他将自己的研究结果推广到了以面试为中心的研究方法比以观察为中心的研究方法在研究包括Tertia在内的一组岛屿时本质上更有效这一结论。为充分评价这一论断，我们需要更多的以面试为中心的人类学研究和以观察为中心的人类学研究的例子，并且我们还需要考察不同的研究设计。或许Field博士并未开展一项有效的观察式研究，而其它的观察式研究均可能是有效的。为了做出如此宏大的论断，Karp博士实在需要提供很多额外的证据。
Clearly, then, we need to have additional evidence in order to get a more complete understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Karp’s article. We need to know about Tertia and the surrounding islands, and whether or not they have changed over the past 20 years. We also need to know about study design (Dr. Karp’s and Dr. Field’s). Finally, we need an abundance of information if we want to extend the results of a study about one island culture to all anthropological fieldwork.
【本段结构】
本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即C—S的结尾结构。段落首先再次重申原文站不住脚的Conclusion，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信息等。
【本段功能】
本段作为Argument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Argument缺乏额外的证据支持，接下来给出合理的建议。我们需要对Tertia及其周围岛屿和它们在20年内是否发生了变化进行了解。我们还需要了解(Karp博士和Field博士的)研究设计。最后，如果我们想将对于一个岛屿文化的研究成果推广到全部人类学研究工作的话，我们还需要大量的信息。不难发现，结尾段总结提出的建议非常规整地与正文各段中依次攻击的错误遥相呼应，使全篇文章显得浑然一体。
【满分要素剖析】
【语言表达】
本文的语言使用规范、清晰，词汇也用得准确地道，并使用多变的句式让考官读起来津津有味，这些都是GRE写作官方的语言要求。同时，文章的结构型语言和内容型语言相得益彰，结构是骨架，内容是血肉，二者完美结合。
1) It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that ….(标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。)However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, an audience should be provided with additional evidence.(标志性的指出文章错误的语言表达。)
2) The audience should know, before deciding conclusively about …, if …. ...and it is possible that … has changed significantly since then. For example, if we had evidence suggesting that, …, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been accurate and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct.(标志性的(时间上的)错误类比的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
3) Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves …. According to this article, …. If we were to learn that …, it would significantly weaken the conclusion. It could turn out to be the case, for example, that …, whereas ….(标志性的调查类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
4) Further, in order to fully evaluate this claim the audience needs to learn more about …—…? We don’t know, nor do we know …. The mere fact that … does not mean that …. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that …. Without knowing …, one cannot accept the argument above without reservations.(标志性的调查类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
5) It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in …. In order to fully evaluate this claim one would require …and we would also need to look into …. Perhaps …, but …. In order to make such grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs to provide a lot of additional evidence.(标志性的外推类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
6) Clearly, then, we need to have additional evidence in order to get a more complete understanding of …. We need to know about …. We also need to know about …. Finally, we need an abundance of information if we want to ….(标志性的Argument结尾段的Conclusion—Suggestion体系的语言和逻辑模版体系。)
【逻辑结构】
本文的写作体现出了非常严谨的开头段—正文段1、2、3、4—结尾段的逻辑体系：
(开头段)It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that ….
(正文段1)The audience should know, before deciding conclusively about …, if ….
(正文段2)Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves ….
(正文段3)Further, in order to fully evaluate this claim the audience needs to learn more about …—…?
(正文段4)It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in ….
(结尾段)Clearly, then, we need to have additional evidence in order to get a more complete understanding of ….
特别值得一提的是本文正文第三段的写作。该段首先通过Further, in order to fully evaluate this claim the audience needs to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used—what exactly did they ask? We don’t know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say about their biological parents?等一系列疑问句指出原文中出现的调查类错误，并紧接着通过The mere fact that they speak more frequently about their biological parents than they do about other adults does not mean that their biological parents had a greater role than the community did in their rearing. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment.两句递进地对该逻辑错误进行有力的分析。最后，该段通过Without knowing what the children said, one cannot accept the argument above without reservations.一句对全段讨论进行总结，充分展现出了正文段严密的逻辑思路。
以上就是关于“
