今天2017年5月15日真题练习及解析，包括题目以及相关解析资料，大家可以首先尝试练习一下，想要获得更多GRE写作备考资料，请提供手机号来下载吧!
The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago I listed my home with Fitch, and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams Realty."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
【满分范文赏析】
The author argues that Adams Realty is superior to Fitch Realty. To support this claim the author cites statistics about the number and working hours of agents, and the number and sales prices of homes sold by the two farms. Further, the author cites anecdotal evidence involving personal experience with Fitch and Adams. A careful analysis reveals that this evidence lends little credible support for the argument.
【本段结构】本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—E—F的开头结构。段落首先概括原文的Conclusion，接下来概括原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Evidence，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即其Evidence不能为其结论提供可靠的支持。
【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Adams不动产公司要优于Fitch不动产公司。本段接下来分布列举了原文为支持其结论所引用的证据——这两家公司所拥有经纪人的数目和工作时间、二者所售出的住宅的数量和价格、以及与两家公司接触的个人经历等等。这些信息的归纳为正文段中即将进行的具体攻击作出铺垫。
本文是2017年5月15日GRE写作Issue真题练习及解析。
The claim is partially based on the fact that Adams has more agents than Fitch and that many of Fitch’s agents work only part-time. There is no correlation between the number of employees, their working hours, and the quality of their work. Without such a link, we could consider the possibility that a smaller firm could be more effective than a larger one and, likewise, that a part-time agent could be more effective than a full-time agent. Besides, the author does not provide any information about the specific number of Adams agents who work part-time.
【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，攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——相关性错误。原文的论点部分建立在Adams的经纪人数目更多并且Fitch的很多经纪人仅兼职工作这一事实上。然而，一个较小规模的公司可能会比一个较大规模的公司效率更高;同理，一位兼职的经纪人也可能会比一位全职的经纪人工作效率更高。另外，原文作者并没有对Adams的兼职经纪人的具体数目提供更多信息。
The claim is also supported by the fact that Adams sold more properties than Fitch last year. One year of sales records is an insufficient sample. It is possible that in most other years Adams could have sold fewer properties than Fitch. Moreover, the disparity in sales volume could be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms. For example, perhaps Adams serves a denser geographic area or in an area where turnover in home-ownership is higher for reasons unrelated to Adams’ effectiveness. It is even possible that the only reason sales volume is higher at Adams is because the company employs more agents but, perhaps, each Adams agent sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence.
【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+因果类错误。除上一段中提到的论据外，原文所依赖的另一论据是Adams去年比Fitch售出了更多的房产这一事实。然而，仅仅一年的销售数据是一个不充分的样本——可能在大多数其它年份里Adams的房产销售量均低于Fitch的房产销售量。进一步，本段指出两家公司房产销售量之间的差异可以被这两家公司的相对竞争力之外的其它可能因素所解释，并随后提出了两种其它的可能解释。最后，本段指出作者在没有排除这些其它可能解释之前是不能利用如此缺乏的证据对其结论进行辩护的。
Support for the claim is also drawn from the average sales price of homes. This evidence only illustrates that the homes that Adams sells are more valuable on average than the ones that Fitch sells, not that Adams is more effective in selling homes than Fitch. Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high-priced or low-priced properties skewed these averages, rendering any conclusions about the comparative quality of the two firms based on these averages irrelevant.
【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——因果类错误+平均值错误。在原文中，对两家不动产公司房产平均销售价的比较也为原文论点提供了支持。然而，这一证据仅能说明Adams所售房产平均而言比Fitch所售房产的价值更高，而并不能说明Adams的售房效率比Fitch更高。进一步，本段指出房产售价的平均值可能会受到个别售价相对较高或较低的房产的影响，因此基于这些平均值所得出的任何关于这两家不动产公司品质比较的结论均是不相干的。
"Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served."
以上的内容就是2017年5月15日GRE写作Issue真题练习及解析，希望可以给大家备考提供更多帮助!
