我们讨论一下新GRE作文改革后，对于argument写作所造成的变化，希望能够帮助到大家，也希望大家能多多分享给考G的战友们!

在GRE作文中，多数同学会觉得Argument比Issue容易上手，也更容易形成固定的写作套路。尤其是老GRE中， Argument的写作要求(instructions)千篇一律，可以用同样的思路来应对，主要的工作是针对不同类别的逻辑错误准备相应的模板。而新GRE中情况有了变化：每一篇Argument材料之后都有附有一段instructions，指出写作角度和侧重点。本文针对新GRE中Argument的一大类instructions，谈谈我们对其内涵的理解，并给出我们在写作思路上的建议。由于是讨论特定类型的Argument写法，因此本文并不是Argument的入门介绍，而是适合对Argument已有一定的了解的同学来阅读参考。

新GRE的Argument中常见以下几种instructions：

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.

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.

这几段instructions可归为一大类，关键词都是evaluate，因此我们将其称之为“evaluate类”Argument(进一步细分的话可以是question类和evidence类)。相信大家很容易就能读懂这几段话的字面意思，下面我们就分享一下我们对这类instructions的理解和分析。

1. 无论是讨论需要提出并回答哪些问题，还是讨论需要哪些证据，都表明原文作者在给出结论/建议/预测时有所考虑不周。这类Argument写作的实质，就是讨论原文作者忽略的方面等，指出这些额外信息一旦获得，会对作者的结论/建议/预测产生怎样的影响。

2. 从第一点中可以看出，原文因为一些逻辑错误从而有缺陷，这些逻辑错误可能是错误类比，可能是post ergo propter hoc，还可能是片面因果关系等等。在旧GRE中，论证的思路和角度通常就是直接指出逻辑错误的存在，再举例说明原文作者忽略的某些情况/因素会导致原文的观点不可靠/不成立。但是在新GRE的这类instructions中，我们认为论证角度侧重于在具体answers/evidence的情况下原文的论证/结论/建议/预测是否成立/有效。同时写作的出发点也不再侧重探讨如何加强原文的结论(很多同学习惯在开头或结尾写to strengthen the argument)，而是仅仅对原文进行分析。

3. 评价(evaluate)本身是一个中性的词，包括正反两方面：评价一个事物，可以说它好，也可以说它坏。因此我们建议，在写这类Argument的时候，不仅要像在旧GRE中那样讨论哪些回答/证据可能导致作者的结论不成立或得到削弱(反面)，也要讨论哪些回答/证据可以加强作者的结论(正面)。在前面引述的最后一种instructions中，更是明确地提到了这一点：explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument。我们觉得这表明新GRE的Argument写作要求一个更客观中立的角度，而不像旧GRE中那样完全批判式地指出原文的结论如何不靠谱。

罗嗦了这么多，其实要点只有两个：(1)批判要针对具体回答/证据的情况，(2)兼顾正反两方面的回答/证据。上面的原理性阐述难免枯燥，下面我们给出一个具体例子，通过新旧GRE写法对比，让大家对“evaluate类”Argument写法的印象更具体。“北极鹿”的Argument相信很多同学都遇到过，其原文如下：

Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.

下面是旧GRE时代一位同学的习作。请大家忽略一些语言/逻辑方面的小问题，关注的是写作角度和模式化语言：

In this editorial in a wildlife journal, the author attributes the decline in arctic deer population to the global warming which makes deer unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea. To substantiate his hypothesis, reports from local hunter are cited as an evidence to prove the decline of deer population. Quite convincing though it may appear to be at first glance, the author's argument suffers from several logical flaws which render his conclusion highly dubious.

Firstly, he alleges there has been a decrease of deer population merely based on the report from local hunter, which is questionable since local hunter cannot cover the whole arctic region, and thus be unable to provide accurate data concerning deer population. It is very likely that deer have intentionally avoided direct contact with hunters in order to survive the hunting. In such a case, hunters would have naturally observed less deer while the whole population remains the same or even rise. Hence, with inadequate information offered by the author, it's unclear whether the deer population has decreased or not.

Secondly, the recent trend of global warming cannot necessarily mean there lies an increase of temperature in arctic area. Since Earth's climate system is highly intricate, there could be huge difference in separate regions where one suffers from heat waves while the other witnesses an even colder climate. Without any direct temperature data inside arctic region, we could not say the temperature of arctic has actually increased.

Even if we acknowledge the alleged facts that deer population has dropped and temperature has risen, it's too early to draw the conclusion that they have causal relationship. As a matter of fact, the population of one species highly depends on several factors, like the quantity of their prey and predators, besides temperature. To be specific, a lethal epidemic could decimate deer in the Arctic Circle, while it has nothing to do with global warming. Without taking such factors into consideration, the author draws the conclusion too hastily and presumptuously.

Finally, granted that decrease in population does result from global warming, the author naively accuses it of devastating the migration pattern adopted by arctic deer. As I have mentioned above, the survival of a species is highly dependent on many factors. Provided that global warming, with a significant increase of ambient carbon dioxide, has greatly acidified the ocean, it is likely that plants which need water to sustain their life would be threatened or even killed. Therefore, failure to investigate other possibilities renders author's statement untenable.

To sum up, the author fails to provide substantial evidence proving his allegation regarding deer population and temperature. What's more, he is unable to prove there is a causal relationship between them. If he could have present more accurate and specific data regarding deer population and temperature, as well as scrutinized another potential factors contributing to population change, his statement would likely be more persuasive.

这里我们用粗体突出了一部分具有旧GRE特点的语句，大家可以看出它们大多是直接批评原文的逻辑漏洞，直接指出原文的结论不可靠。在论述每个逻辑缺陷时，也只是谈到了会导致原文结论不成立的反面情况和条件。

在新GRE中，这篇Argument后的instructions为：

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.

下面是这篇Argument保留原来的论证素材，按照新的要求改写之后的文章：

In this argument, the author cites reports from local hunters as evidence for the decline of the arctic deer populations, and subsequently attributes this decline to global warming, which allegedly makes deer unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea.Although the argument seems plausible at first glance, a close scrutiny will reveal that additional evidence is necessary for an effective evaluation of its validity.

Firstly, the author asserts a decrease in the deer populations merely based on reports from local hunters. However, such reports may not serve as a convincing indicator, since the deer might have intentionally avoided direct contact with hunters in order to survive hunting. Therefore, more persuasive evidence must be presented for a better evaluation of the populations. For example, a scientific study surveying the entire area could offer much stronger evidence for the change in deer populations. If the results of the study show that the overall populations are indeed on the decline, it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it. On the other hand, if the results evidence constant or even increasing populations, the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless.

Secondly, specific evidence regarding the change of temperature in the arctic regions is also needed to evaluate the author's reference of global warming. This is because the earth's climate is an intricate system and the trend of global warming does not necessarily result in an increase in temperature and cause sea ice to melt in the local arctic regions of interest. If local temperature data illustrate a non-varying or even colder climate, the adoption of global warming to account for phenomena in these regions will be highly suspicious. On the contrary, local temperatures that manifest a climate change consistent with the general trend of global warming will help strengthen this point of reasoning in the argument.

Furthermore, even if we corroborate the decline in deer populations and acknowledge a warmer climate in the arctic regions, further evidence is still necessary for an evaluation of the author's causal association of the decline in deer populations with the increased local temperatures. As a matter of fact, the populations of deer depend on more factors than climate alone, such as the quantity of their predators and epidemics. Consequently, it is of great significance to examine all the possible causes for population changes, and find out evidence for the roles they are playing. If evidence demonstrates that reasons other than increased temperatures are primarily responsible for the observed population decline, the purported link between this decline and climate change will be greatly weakened. Nevertheless, on condition that evidence is found to be able to testify the negligibility of all the other influences and rule out all the alternative explanations for the population decline, the causal relationship between the decrease and warmer climate, claimed in the argument, will be considerably strengthened.

Finally, granted that the deer populations do decline due to increased local temperatures associated with the global warming, concrete evidence still remains desirable to evaluate the author's assertion that it is via disturbing the deer's migration patterns that the warmer climate reduces the populations. As mentioned above, the survival of deer relies on numerous factors, many of which are likely to be affected by temperature, and hence evidence from investigation into all these temperature dependent factors has to be obtained. Provided that such evidence reveals, for instance, that the higher temperatures endanger plants the deer mainly feed on and that the population drop is a result of food shortage caused by increased temperatures but not inability to migrate, the conclusion of the argument will prove untenable. Conversely, evidence undoubtedly exhibiting that the warmer climate melts the sea ice and leads to the deer's failure to follow the old-aged migration pattern and ultimately their massive death will be in strong support of the proposed reason for the drop of deer populations in the argument.

To sum up, evidence beyond what has been brought forward by the author is required for a legitimate evaluation of the reasoning and conclusion of the argument. Specifically, detailed and reliable evidence concerning the deer populations, the climate change in the arctic regions, as well as all the factors that are capable of affecting the deer populations, whether temperature dependent or not, will be helpful with evaluating the credibility of the argument.

大家可以明显看出写作角度的不同，我们来具体看一下要点是怎样体现的：

(1)在特定evidence的基础上评价原文，而不是直接说原文不靠谱。例如在第二段if the results evidence constant or even increasing populations, the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless，而不像旧GRE中那样直接说with inadequate information offered by the author, it's unclear whether the deer population has decreased or not。

(2)既论及反面evidence，也讨论正面evidence。同样举第二段的例子，既谈到某些evidence会使得it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it，也谈到某些evidence会导致the discussion of reasons for the decline in populations in the argument will be rendered groundless。

(3)相信大家发现了，这样的分析会显著增加文章的长度(486→734词)，这是由于我们加入了evidence支持作者claim的可能性和由此带来的影响。在实际的考试中可能会时间不够，我们的建议是减少分析的点(例如只分析最重要的或漏洞最明显的三个)，以保证每一段的深度和分量。

还有一点，大家可以注意到我们在evaluate原文的时候尽量具体，例如在第二段里我们说it will be justifiable for the argument to further discuss the reasons for it，而不是泛泛地说the argument will be strengthened。我们觉得这样具体化的论断更严谨也更有说服力。

通过这个例子的比对，是不是觉得“evaluate类”Argument也不难写呢?只要熟悉一下这类写作套路，那么准备好的素材都还可以使用，找出的逻辑错误都可以改造成evaluate角度。相信大家在练习几次之后就能适应这类新GRE的要求。

在结束本文之前，我们还想指出我们在改作文时常遇到的一个小错误和一个逻辑漏洞。首先，evidence做名词的时候几乎总是不可数，所以大家不要加s或者a/an。其次，建议大家不要采用questions to be answered to strengthen the argument或者evidence needed to strengthen the argument这类说法， 因为“回答问题”、“提出证据”的行为不能起到strengthen the argument的作用，只有某些特定的回答和证据才能够strengthen the argument，而某些回答和证据可能weaken the argument，同时回答问题、提出证据仅仅为了评价(evaluate)，是一个中性目的，因此我们建议改写成to evaluate the argument等。