GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：devote money for recreational facilities

　　In surveys, Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should, for that reason, devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.

　　Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

　　【满分范文赏析】

　　While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, the author fails to make an argument for the justification of increased monetary resources based on the potential of increased recreational patronage of the river. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.

　　【本段结构】

　　本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F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Mason政府应当为沿河游乐设施投入更多的金钱。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，包括人们潜在的水上娱乐以及更干净的河水质量的需求。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。

　　Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward ranking river sports over a less attractive option. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live in the vicinity of the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. Unless the survey is provided, analyzed, and found to be of use for the case presented above, it cannot be accepted as fully representative, valid, and reliable.

　　【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。对于原文当中提到的Survey，本文并不认为这样的调查是有说服力的。比如，调查的样本数量，调查的问题内容，调查的方式等等，都可能对这个调查的公正性产生消极的作用。所以，原文的关于调查具有说服力的Assumption是不合理的。

　　Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smells bad. While a polluted, stinking river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen the argument, a full and complete survey should be performed for the explicit purpose of gather opinions regarding the matter at hand.

　　【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二个逻辑错误，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】

　　作为正文第二段，本段攻击原文所犯的第二个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文提到，居民们抱怨由于河水质量问题而很少下水去做娱乐。但是，这样的观点在没有客观证据的支持下是不足让人信服的。有可能是因为其他原因，而非河水质量，导致了居民们不愿意下水娱乐的现象。所以，原文的关于河水质量和人们下水娱乐的因果关系的Assumption是不合理的。

　　Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river cleanup will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems that can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and smell is caused by pollution, this could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water that emit a strong smell of sulfur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a cleanup. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon the quality of water or river usage. Regardless of whether or not the river's quality can be improved, the author does not effectively demonstrate that there is a connection between water quality and river usage.

　　【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——因果类错误。原文提到，如果河水质量问题得到了解决，人们就能够进行更多的水上娱乐。但是，这样的观点是建立在“河水质量问题能够得到解决”的Assumption上的。而如果因为种种原因这个问题得不到或者很难得到解决，那么人们并不能进行更多的水上娱乐。所以，原文的河水质量能够得到解决的Assumption是不合理的。