GMAT作文范文及解析：重新选举地方长官
The following appeared as a part of an advertisement for Adams, who is seeking reelection as governor.
“Re-elect Adams, and you will be voting for proven leadership in improving the state’s economy. Over the past year alone, seventy percent of the state’s workers have had increases in their wages, five thousand new jobs have been created, and six corporations have located their headquarters here. Most of the respondents in a recent poll said they believed that the economy is likely to continue to improve if Adams is reelected. Adams’s opponent, Zebulon, would lead our state in the wrong direction, because Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams’s economic policies.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
正在寻求重新选举为地方长官的Adams的广告宣传：
再次选举Adams，你将为在提升本州经济的过程中已被证实了的领导能力投票。仅在过去的一年中，全州有70%的工人的工资增加了，5000个新就业机会被创造，6个公司将他们的总部设在这里。最近的调查中多数回答者说他们相信如果Adams当选经济将会继续增长。Adams的竞争者Zebulon将把我们州引向错误的方向，因为Zebulon不同意Adams的多数经济政策。
1. 数据vague，物价水平和工资哪个长的更快?5000个就业机会和总体失业水平相比是不是微不足道?六个公司总部设在这里，有没有离开的?调查是由谁进行的，接受调查的又是谁，可信度怎么样?
2. 就算经济确实增长了也不一定是ADAMS的功劳
3. 以上两点没有说明，也就无法因为ZEBULON的经济观点与之相左而判定他上任就会使经济下滑。
This political advertisement recommends re-electing Governor Adams because he has a proven leadership role in improving the state’s economy. In support of this reason the author cites these statistics: in the past year, most state workers’ wages have gone up; 5,000 new jobs have been created; and six corporations have located in the state. Another reason offered for re-electing Adams is a recent poll, which indicates that most respondents believe the state economy would continue to improve if he were re-elected. Finally, the author claims that rival Zebulon would harm the state’s economy because he disagrees with Adams’ fiscal policies. This argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted claims.
To begin with, the statistics are intended to support the main claim that the state is economically better off with Adams as governor. But these statistics are vague and oversimplified, and thus may distort the state’s overall economic picture. For example, state workers’ pay raises may have been minuscule and may not have kept up with cost of living or with pay for state workers in other states. Moreover, the 5,000 new jobs may have been too few to bring state unemployment rates down significantly; at the same time, many jobs may have been lost. Finally, the poll indicates that six new corporations located in the state, but fails to indicate if any left.
Next, the poll cited by the author is described in the vaguest possible terms. The ad does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or how the poll was conducted. Until these questions are answered, the survey results are worthless as evidence for public opinion about Adams or his economic policies.
Finally, while we have only vague and possibly distorted evidence that the state is better off with Adams, we have absolutely no evidence that it would be worse off with Zebulon. Given that the state economy is good at the moment, none of the author’s reasons establishes that Adams is the cause of this. And neither do they establish that the state wouldn’t be even better off with someone else in office.
In conclusion, this argument is weak. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide additional information about the adequacy of state workers’ pay raises, the effect of the 5,000 jobs on the state’s employment picture, the overall growth of corporations in the state, and other features of the state economy. Also, the author must support the claims that Adams’ actions have caused any economic improvement and that in the future Adams will impart more economic benefit than would Zebulon.
