新GRE argument提纲.docx

新GRE argument提纲.docx

《新GRE argument提纲.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《新GRE argument提纲.docx（8页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

新GREargument提纲

Argument1wovenbaskets

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