新GRE argument提纲.docx

1、新GRE argument提纲Argument 1 woven basketsThe argument concludes that the so-called Palean baskets, which have be previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of Palean, were not uniquely Palean, because recently such baskets are discovered in Lithos, which located in the opposite side of a riv

2、er. To support this conclusion, the argument relies on the phenomena that the river between the two villages is so deep and broad that the only vehicle to across it is boat; while no Palean boat has been found. Those phenomena seem logical as evidence to support the argument. However, they are not c

3、onvincing as they stand.To begin with, the argument unwarranted assumes that the prehistoric river was deep and broad just as it is nowadays. However, the speaker provides no ancient records to support this similarity. It is highly possible that in the prehistoric time, the river was narrow and shal

4、low, or even it did not exist, but the long time of thousands of years shaped it into what it is now. Thus without more documents to demonstrate how the original river was, it is unfunded to deduce from the nowadays condition to get the ancient status.Even if the river in the prehistoric time is dee

5、p and broad, by boat was probable not the only way to cross the river. The argument fails to consider other possible alternative ways which we are not assured. Perhaps, the ancient Paleans made detour round the river, or perhaps there used to have a bridge across the river, which was decayed to disa

6、ppear. Without ruling out those possible ways for the Paleans to cross the river, consequently the argument cannot exclude the possibility that the baskets founded in the Lithos was actually brought by the Paleans.Finally, even if the two reasons the speaker offered which are discussed above are sub

7、stantiated, the phenomena that until now no Palean boat have been found is unconvincing to support the conclusion. There is possibility that those boats, which did exist in the prehistoric time, decayed to disappear that no one could find anymore. Moreover, not having found nowadays does not mean th

8、at there are no ancient boats buried underground somewhere. Perhaps with more advanced technology and methodology, geologist will unearth it someday in the near future.In sum, the reasoning of this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strength its conclusion, the speaker should offer convincing

9、 evidences to confirm that the river was truly so deep and broad in the prehistoric time without evolving in the reverse way, that the ancient Paleans could only cross it by boat exclusively rather than taking other ways, and until there are further definitive evidence show that the boat did not exi

10、st could the speaker get the conclusion. 2The author of the letter contends that the study could provide clues as to the effects of birth order on an individuals level of simulation. To support his assumption, the author cites a series of phenomena which are observed in the study that among the eigh

11、teen monkeys, that the first born infant born monkeys produce up to twice as much as do their younger sibling, at the same time the first-time mother monkeys had higher level of cortisol than those who had had several offspring. To confirm the effects, the author also cites that first born humans al

12、so produce relatively high level of cortisol in simulating situation. Those phenomena seem explicable. However the author ignored many other alternative explanations, which may render the conclusion unwarranted.First of all, as to the relationship between the cortisol and the individuals level of st

13、imulation, there is no definitive theory provided that the cortisol is the only factor that decides the level of stimulation. Perhaps there exists some certain kinds of hormone which exactly counter with the effect of cortisol. In this case, the high level of cortisol may have nothing to do with the

14、 level of stimulation. Supposed the level of cortisol does have a unknown relationship with the leave of stimulation, there are many other alternative and reasonable explanations that could interpret why the firstborn infant monkey produce up to twice as much of the cortisol as do their sibling. Per

15、haps it is caused by their living environment, where the firstborn monkey lacks good care because of the inexperience of the mother monkey, so they have to deal with the problem of deficient food or face the threat from other monkey, which may cause them to produce more cortisol. While their sibling

16、, getting better care from both the mother monkey and the elder firstborn monkey, live in a better condition, which may limit them to produce the corstisol. Without ruling out those outside interferences, the evidence offered by the author is unconvincing.Even if the assumption the author made above

17、 are founded, the fact that the first-time mother monkey had higher levels of cortisol does not mean that this character will pass to the firstborn monkey. Besides, the high level of cortisol may be caused by the lack of food during the pregnancy, or by the inexperience of the first-time pregnancy.

18、If either is the case, then connection of the level of cortisol and the level of stimulation is doubtful.In conclusion, failing to mention and further rule out the alternative explanations which I proposed above, the explanations the author offer is not convincing enough to provide the clues as to t

19、he effects of birth order on an individuals level of stimulation. 3The owners of the Central Plaza recommend that the city should prohibit the skateboarding in Central Plaza. To support their recommendation, the owner cites that while their business is decreasing, the popularity of skateboarding is

20、creasing. And along with the increase of skateboarding, the litter and vandalism in throughout the plaza is increasing too. I find the recommendation is ungrounded, because these owners just unfairly assume that it is the presence of skateboarders that result in the current situation of the plaza. F

21、irst of all, I suggest that the owner should previously retrospect themselves before they arbitrarily ascribe the decrease to the skateboarders. Does their decline have any thing to do with their management or their policy of sale? Or is the whole economic is in depression? While either of the possi

22、bilities may result in the decrease, without answering the two questions, the owner could not unjustly exert blame on the skateboards.Supposing that there is nothing wrong with the owners store and the whole sale economy, the decline of business may come from the competition of a new mall which mayb

23、e newly built in the near street. Perhaps the commodities sold in the new mall are much better than those sold in theirs, which pushes consumers away. Failing to provide any information about the possibility, there owners just can not convince me.Even if the possibilities I discussed above do not ex

24、ist, the owner allege that prohibiting of skateboarding will revive their business. However, their assurance is unfounded. The consumers may have lost interests in the commodity in their stores any longer; perhaps because the commodity there are out of date or the quality is not as good as they were

25、 before, therefore, they turn to other stores nearby. If this is the case, the disappearance of the skateboarder will not help return the business. Even worse, the business may decline sharply, since maybe those skateboarders actually are the main consumers of their stores, while the letter contains

26、 no information about it. In conclusion, the recommendation is not well supported enough to render the city to adopt it. To convince me and the city governor, the owners need to provide clear evidence that during the period of business decrease, the whole economy is stable and the management did not

27、 go worse. To better evaluate their recommendation. I still need to know the actual reason why the previous consumers stop going to their stores. A survey may do a lot of help to analyze the reason and find out the real cause of the decrease.Argument 10In the argument, the anthropologist Dr.Karp ass

28、erts that his research about the child-rearing in island based on the method of interview is valid while his predecessors is invalid, because it was finished by observation. The only reason the Dr.Karp offered is that during the interview, the children including those from the island of Tersia talke

29、d more time about their biological parents. And after that some anthropologists recommend that interview is more accurate to do further research on the subject. Lacking enough evidences, I find the conclusions from both Dr.Karp and some other anthropologists are unwarranted.First of all, the Dr.Karp

30、 reasoned that during his interview, the children talked more time about their biological parents. However, this does not indicate that they are reared by their parents. It is equally possible that the very reason why they talked more about their biological parents is exactly that they do not know m

31、uch about their parents, which is cause by being tore apart from their parents since they were born, therefore they are curious about their parents. Since the Dr.Karp failed to provide the contents the children talked about their parents, he can not convince me of his conclusion. Besides, the Dr.Kar

32、p did not give us the number of children who came from the island of Tersia among those children he interviewed. Perhaps among those interviewed children, only a small part of them came from the island of Tersia, which makes the interview is statistically meaningless. It is possible that those child

33、ren from the island of Tersia, in the contrary, spent little time talking about their parents, which contradicts with the authors conclusion. Therefore, without the proportion of the children from the island who were included in the interview, the conclusion is unconvincing.Even if what the author got is correct, there is no evidence t