GRE길라잡이GRE교재분석GRE공부전략GRE학원정보GRE FAQGRE자료게시판GRE문제토론GRE비법노트GRE Writing

Argue 16 고수님들 첨삭 부탁드립니다! 감사합니다!!

아자아자 | 조회 536 | 추천 10
  • 2016.09.28
  • 글꼴
  • 확대
  • 축소

■ Direction You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. You response will be judge on the basis of The quality of writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and the relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.
■ Question Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on the points made in the reading

▶ Topic : 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 maintaing 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.

Wirte a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

▶ Your Answer :

In the above statement, the author asserts that the city government ought to spend more money on recreational facilities to increase the number of people using the river for water sports. While supporting the argument, however, the author makes numerous assumptions which cannot be taken for granted thus the argument remains largely unconvincing without further evidence to verify unjustified assumptions.


Firstly, the author claims that the survey results derived from the residents necessarily indicates their love of water sports, however, this may not be the case. Even if there might be people who have a strong desire to enjoy water sports, the survey might lack validity and sample representativeness. To be specific, the survey could have asked only small population of the area or only residents living riverside who might take more advantage than other residents with the development of riverside recreational facilities. In addition, it is not clear (certain) that among how many recreational activities they preferred water sports. The survey might have asked respondents to choose one answer between two activities; for example, they might have had only two choices; basketball and watersports. Thus, it needs to be clarified if the sample was large enough, an unbiased group and the survey was composed of disinterested questions not swaying them into a specific direction.


Secondly, the author’s assumption that more people might use water if the river is cleaned up is not conclusively proven. While the number of people using river might increase after cleaning up the river, it needs to be verified that the quality of the river’s water and smell are the cause of people’s avoidance to use the river for water sports. It is possible that there might have been a third factor impeding the residents from enjoying water sports in the river. For example, lots of them might have been using other facilities for water sports instead of the river. In addition, the fact that there have been complaints about the quality of the river’s water and the smell is not necessarily indicative of its connection to the direct cause of low population using the river. For instance, there might have been only a few complaints from four residents, and the time period of data collection might have been too brief, indicating the result could be temporary or an exceptional case. As such, more detailed data needs to be considered whether the low quality of the river is the causal evidence since the argument is largely based on it.


Lastly, the author’s assumption that the city government has to increase its spending money on riverside recreational facilities given that the city park department devotes little of its budget to them is not plausible without corroborating evidence. Although it is implied that more money spent on the riverside facilities might encourage more people to use it, this may not be the case. There might be a possibility other parties than the city park department may have devoted sufficient amounts of money to managing the recreational facilities. Furthermore, even if it might be true that devoting more money helps to improve the quality of riverside facilities, it is not evident that there might have been no action undertaken to maintain them. For example, there might have been some volunteering work to improve the recreational facilities by local companies. Since the argument chiefly rests on the assumption that the government’s low budget on the riverside facility correlates to the low number of population using the river, evidence pertaining to the existence of any other actions that might have been undertaken is necessary.


In sum, the author’s claim is not very well supported in its current form. Further evidence pertaining to validity of the surveys, correlation between low quality of the river’s water and people’s intention to enjoy water sports in the river and the existence of other actions undertaken to maintain the recreational facilities is crucial to strengthen his/her argument.

글쓰기 답변 수정 삭제 목록으로 퍼가기▼
  • 페이스북으로 보내기
  • 트위터로 보내기
  • URL 복사

GRE Writing
번호 형식 ETS 제목 글쓴이 조회수 날짜
공지 00 GRE Final 적중노트 해설영상 필수보카 암기법,보카TEST 답안지 [6] 도우미 1124  
공지 [정보] Writing 시험 후 소감과 tip - Argue [5] spectator 46287  
6528 00 해커스 Essay & Speech 콘테스트(~4/9) 인증서+상금 혜택! 사진 [4] 도우미 227 2017.02.21
6527 내작품 GRE [ARGUE] 시험이라고 생각하고 처음 써봤는데요~ 혹시 4점 가능할까요... 케빈 카뎃 223 2017.02.12
6526 평가 ㅠㅠ 이슈에서 고칠 부분, 예상 점수 정중히 부탁드립니다. 감사합니다. 동키킥 190 2017.01.22
6525 평가 2537 첨삭 간절히 부탁드립니다... 부탁드려요 147 2017.01.22
6524 질문 7 처음으로 써본 초보예요.. 첨삭 및 예상 점수 정중히 부탁드립니다. 동키 166 2017.01.21
6523 내작품 116 아규 116번 첨삭 부탁드립니다! 초짜 504 2016.10.28
6522 평가 ㅁㄴㄹㅇ 태어나서 첨 써본 아규인데요... 시간이 부족해서 다 못 썼어요,, 이런... 초짜 451 2016.10.27
6521 내작품 46 Argue 53번 평가 부탁드립니다. Argue 53 473 2016.10.14
>> 기타 kkk Argue 16 고수님들 첨삭 부탁드립니다! 감사합니다!! 아자아자 537 2016.09.28
6519 내작품 77 첨삭부탁드립니다. 라이팅 2.5가 나와서요ㅠㅠ 조언도 달아주시면 감사하겠... [2] 쿠쿠 952 2016.09.13
6518 평가 33 argue 33 첨삭 부탁드립니다. ^^ lgk1003 631 2016.08.20
6517 평가 001 채점부탁드려요..이정도하면 4.5 정도 나올까요 [2] 채점부탁 1085 2016.08.15
6516 내작품 argue 72 argue 72를 써봤는데 고수님들 첨삭 부탁드립니다 vollmond 698 2016.08.03
6515 평가 163 첨삭 / 평가 부탁드려요. 당신의 도움이 나에게 빛을. [2] 부탁해요 879 2016.07.09
6514 평가 141 Is there anyone who leave any comments o... [1] BLACK 733 2016.07.04
6513 내작품 issue (issue) 음... 첨삭이 가능하다면 부탁드립니다. rookie 829 2016.06.22
6512 "" Cheap goods Johnk807 682 2016.06.21
6511 내작품 1111 OFF 일까요..? KI3 786 2016.06.06
6510 1 GRE Writing Ann Im 선생님 만점을 위한 에세이 구조 [2] 도우미 3736 2016.06.03
6509 내작품 123 [이슈] 첨삭 부탁드려요 이슈 858 2016.06.03