新GRE argument提纲Word下载.docx
《新GRE argument提纲Word下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《新GRE argument提纲Word下载.docx(8页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
Theargumentconcludesthattheso-calledPaleanbaskets,whichhavebepreviouslybeenfoundonlyintheimmediatevicinityofPalean,werenotuniquelyPalean,becauserecentlysuchbasketsarediscoveredinLithos,whichlocatedintheoppositesideofariver.Tosupportthisconclusion,theargumentreliesonthephenomenathattheriverbetweenthetwovillagesissodeepandbroadthattheonlyvehicletoacrossitisboat;
whilenoPaleanboathasbeenfound.Thosephenomenaseemlogicalasevidencetosupporttheargument.However,theyarenotconvincingastheystand.
Tobeginwith,theargumentunwarrantedassumesthattheprehistoricriverwasdeepandbroadjustasitisnowadays.However,thespeakerprovidesnoancientrecordstosupportthissimilarity.Itishighlypossiblethatintheprehistorictime,theriverwasnarrowandshallow,orevenitdidnotexist,butthelongtimeofthousandsofyearsshapeditintowhatitisnow.Thuswithoutmoredocumentstodemonstratehowtheoriginalriverwas,itisunfundedtodeducefromthenowadaysconditiontogettheancientstatus.
Eveniftheriverintheprehistorictimeisdeepandbroad,byboatwasprobablenottheonlywaytocrosstheriver.Theargumentfailstoconsiderotherpossiblealternativewayswhichwearenotassured.Perhaps,theancientPaleansmadedetourroundtheriver,orperhapsthereusedtohaveabridgeacrosstheriver,whichwasdecayedtodisappear.WithoutrulingoutthosepossiblewaysforthePaleanstocrosstheriver,consequentlytheargumentcannotexcludethepossibilitythatthebasketsfoundedintheLithoswasactuallybroughtbythePaleans.
Finally,evenifthetworeasonsthespeakerofferedwhicharediscussedabovearesubstantiated,thephenomenathatuntilnownoPaleanboathavebeenfoundisunconvincingtosupporttheconclusion.Thereispossibilitythatthoseboats,whichdidexistintheprehistorictime,decayedtodisappearthatnoonecouldfindanymore.Moreover,nothavingfoundnowadaysdoesnotmeanthattherearenoancientboatsburiedundergroundsomewhere.Perhapswithmoreadvancedtechnologyandmethodology,geologistwillunearthitsomedayinthenearfuture.
Insum,thereasoningofthisargumentisunpersuasiveasitstands.Tostrengthitsconclusion,thespeakershouldofferconvincingevidencestoconfirmthattheriverwastrulysodeepandbroadintheprehistorictimewithoutevolvinginthereverseway,thattheancientPaleanscouldonlycrossitbyboatexclusivelyratherthantakingotherways,anduntiltherearefurtherdefinitiveevidenceshowthattheboatdidnotexistcouldthespeakergettheconclusion.
2
Theauthorofthelettercontendsthatthestudycouldprovidecluesastotheeffectsofbirthorderonanindividual’slevelofsimulation.Tosupporthisassumption,theauthorcitesaseriesofphenomenawhichareobservedinthestudythatamongtheeighteenmonkeys,thatthefirstborninfantbornmonkeysproduceuptotwiceasmuchasdotheiryoungersibling,atthesametimethefirst-timemothermonkeyshadhigherlevelofcortisolthanthosewhohadhadseveraloffspring.Toconfirmtheeffects,theauthoralsocitesthatfirstbornhumansalsoproducerelativelyhighlevelofcortisolinsimulatingsituation.Thosephenomenaseemexplicable.Howevertheauthorignoredmanyotheralternativeexplanations,whichmayrendertheconclusionunwarranted.
Firstofall,astotherelationshipbetweenthecortisolandtheindividual’slevelofstimulation,thereisnodefinitivetheoryprovidedthatthecortisolistheonlyfactorthatdecidesthelevelofstimulation.Perhapsthereexistssomecertainkindsofhormonewhichexactlycounterwiththeeffectofcortisol.Inthiscase,thehighlevelofcortisolmayhavenothingtodowiththelevelofstimulation.
Supposedthelevelofcortisoldoeshaveaunknownrelationshipwiththeleaveofstimulation,therearemanyotheralternativeandreasonableexplanationsthatcouldinterpretwhythefirstborninfantmonkeyproduceuptotwiceasmuchofthecortisolasdotheirsibling.Perhapsitiscausedbytheirlivingenvironment,wherethefirstbornmonkeylacksgoodcarebecauseoftheinexperienceofthemothermonkey,sotheyhavetodealwiththeproblemofdeficientfoodorfacethethreatfromothermonkey,whichmaycausethemtoproducemorecortisol.Whiletheirsibling,gettingbettercarefromboththemothermonkeyandtheelderfirstbornmonkey,liveinabettercondition,whichmaylimitthemtoproducethecorstisol.Withoutrulingoutthoseoutsideinterferences,theevidenceofferedbytheauthorisunconvincing.
Eveniftheassumptiontheauthormadeabovearefounded,thefactthatthefirst-timemothermonkeyhadhigherlevelsofcortisoldoesnotmeanthatthischaracterwillpasstothefirstbornmonkey.Besides,thehighlevelofcortisolmaybecausedbythelackoffoodduringthepregnancy,orbytheinexperienceofthefirst-timepregnancy.Ifeitheristhecase,thenconnectionofthelevelofcortisolandthelevelofstimulationisdoubtful.
Inconclusion,failingtomentionandfurtherruleoutthealternativeexplanationswhichIproposedabove,theexplanationstheauthorofferisnotconvincingenoughtoprovidethecluesastotheeffectsofbirthorderonanindividual’slevelofstimulation.
3
TheownersoftheCentralPlazarecommendthatthecityshouldprohibittheskateboardinginCentralPlaza.Tosupporttheirrecommendation,theownercitesthatwhiletheirbusinessisdecreasing,thepopularityofskateboardingiscreasing.Andalongwiththeincreaseofskateboarding,thelitterandvandalisminthroughouttheplazaisincreasingtoo.Ifindtherecommendationisungrounded,becausetheseownersjustunfairlyassumethatitisthepresenceofskateboardersthatresultinthecurrentsituationoftheplaza.
Firstofall,Isuggestthattheownershouldpreviouslyretrospectthemselvesbeforetheyarbitrarilyascribethedecreasetotheskateboarders.Doestheirdeclinehaveanythingtodowiththeirmanagementortheirpolicyofsale?
Oristhewholeeconomicisindepression?
Whileeitherofthepossibilitiesmayresultinthedecrease,withoutansweringthetwoquestions,theownercouldnotunjustlyexertblameontheskateboards.
Supposingthatthereisnothingwrongwiththeowner’sstoreandthewholesaleeconomy,thedeclineofbusinessmaycomefromthecompetitionofanewmallwhichmaybenewlybuiltinthenearstreet.Perhapsthecommoditiessoldinthenewmallaremuchbetterthanthosesoldintheirs,whichpushesconsumersaway.Failingtoprovideanyinformationaboutthepossibility,thereownersjustcannotconvinceme.
EvenifthepossibilitiesIdiscussedabovedonotexist,theownerallegethatprohibitingofskateboardingwillrevivetheirbusiness.However,theirassuranceisunfounded.Theconsumersmayhavelostinterestsinthecommodityintheirstoresanylonger;
perhapsbecausethecommoditythereareoutofdateorthequalityisnotasgoodastheywerebefore,therefore,theyturntootherstoresnearby.Ifthisisthecase,thedisappearanceoftheskateboarderwillnothelpreturnthebusiness.Evenworse,thebusinessmaydeclinesharply,sincemaybethoseskateboardersactuallyarethemainconsumersoftheirstores,whilethelettercontainsnoinformationaboutit.
Inconclusion,therecommendationisnotwellsupportedenoughtorenderthecitytoadoptit.Toconvincemeandthecitygovernor,theownersneedtoprovideclearevidencethatduringtheperiodofbusinessdecrease,thewholeeconomyisstableandthemanagementdidnotgoworse.Tobetterevaluatetheirrecommendation.Istillneedtoknowtheactualreasonwhythepreviousconsumersstopgoingtotheirstores.Asurveymaydoalotofhelptoanalyzethereasonandfindouttherealcauseofthedecrease.
Argument10
Intheargument,theanthropologistDr.Karpassertsthathisresearchaboutthechild-rearinginislandbasedonthemethodofinterviewisvalidwhilehispredecessor’sisinvalid,becauseitwasfinishedbyobservation.TheonlyreasontheDr.Karpofferedisthatduringtheinterview,thechildrenincludingthosefromtheislandofTersiatalkedmoretimeabouttheirbiologicalparents.Andafterthatsomeanthropologistsrecommendthatinterviewismoreaccuratetodofurtherresearchonthesubject.Lackingenoughevidences,IfindtheconclusionsfrombothDr.Karpandsomeotheranthropologistsareunwarranted.
Firstofall,theDr.Karpreasonedthatduringhisinterview,thechildrentalkedmoretimeabouttheirbiologicalparents.However,thisdoesnotindicatethattheyarerearedbytheirparents.Itisequallypossiblethattheveryreasonwhytheytalkedmoreabouttheirbiologicalparentsisexactlythattheydonotknowmuchabouttheirparents,whichiscausebybeingtoreapartfromtheirparentssincetheywereborn,thereforetheyarecuriousabouttheirparents.SincetheDr.Karpfailedtoprovidethecontentsthechildrentalkedabouttheirparents,hecannotconvincemeofhisconclusion.
Besides,theDr.KarpdidnotgiveusthenumberofchildrenwhocamefromtheislandofTersiaamongthosechildrenheinterviewed.Perhapsamongthoseinterviewedchildren,onlyasmallpartofthemcamefromtheislandofTersia,whichmakestheinterviewisstatisticallymeaningless.ItispossiblethatthosechildrenfromtheislandofTersia,inthecontrary,spentlittletimetalkingabouttheirparents,whichcontradictswiththeauthor’sconclusion.Therefore,withouttheproportionofthechildrenfromtheislandwhowereincludedintheinterview,theconclusionisunconvincing.
Evenifwhattheauthorgotiscorrect,thereisnoevidencet