2015年gmat報考指南之評分標準

GMAT寫作 滿分評分標準解讀

A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.

A typical paper in this category exhibits the following characteristics:

rly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully

lops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions

ctively supports the main points of the critique

nstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety

nstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors

標準解讀

要點 1：clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully

關鍵詞：identifies important features, insightfully

tifies important features即鑑別一篇Argument的邏輯漏洞和錯誤。 important一詞説明考生無需指出原文所有的邏輯錯誤，只要發現主要的錯誤，並進行有理有據的批判即可。

ghtfully即Data Mining(數據挖掘)。GMAT作文看重思辨， 並且非常強調對於每個主要邏輯錯誤進行深入的“理性批判”。理性批判的意思是洞察和挖掘每一類邏輯錯誤“背後的邏輯原理”。 “insightful”要求考生從邏輯原理的層面來攻擊每一類邏輯錯誤。

例如，在GMAT Argument題庫裏調查(survey)類錯誤屬於高頻邏輯錯誤。 考生在寫文章的時候, 僅僅強調“此調查有問題，數據不真實，結論站不住腳”等，是非常膚淺的。 真正的“理性批判”是要從“統計學”原理出發來指出調查的問題。 例如從樣本的“quantity”和“quality”兩個角度來分析題中給出的調查。

1)"quantity"指樣本數量。此攻擊原理是“必須同時給出樣本的絕對數量以及所佔的相對比例”。 例如某題目中給出如下的調查數據：5萬名被調查者建議取消公司的打卡制度。 對於此題我們要看到題幹中並未給出公司員工的總量： 如果總量很大，那麼5萬隻佔了很小的比例。 同樣地，另一題中：99%被調查的學生認為作業量過大。對於此題我們依然要指出調查樣本總量的問題：如果被調查學生的總量很小， 99%這一看似很高的比例也不能説明問題。

2)“quality”指樣本質量。這也是調查類題目常見的一個錯誤點。題庫中大量的調查類問題都未指出樣本選擇是否隨機(random)。 如果不隨機，這些樣本的代表性(representativeness)無疑就被弱化了。

要點 2：develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions

關鍵詞： organizes them logically、connects、clear transitions

“GMAT寫作的邏輯”包含形式邏輯和內容邏輯: 形式邏輯就是指文章起承轉合的邏輯信號、邏輯連接詞。它們連接不同的內容,使行文顯得有層次。內容邏輯就是指文章含義推導過程的嚴密性，和我們後文即將解讀的排序方式是高度相關的。

organizes them logically是本條評分標準的.核心。在GMAT Argument寫作裏，只找到各類邏輯錯誤(find problems)是不夠的。評分標準還要求我們很好地組織這些錯誤(organize the problems which you have found)。 只找到邏輯錯誤而沒有將其組織好是無法拿到滿分甚至高分的。

通常，考生可以運用三種“排序方式”來組織邏輯錯誤，即順序排序、主次排序和讓步排序。

1)順序排序--即按照各類錯誤在原文中出現的順序進行攻擊;

2)主次排序--即按照邏輯錯誤的主次順序來排序，此種排序方式相比順序排序更為合理;

3)讓步排序--最邏輯化的排序方式：首先攻擊A錯誤不成立;其次在攻擊B錯誤不成立之前，假定即便A成立，B仍然不成立;最後引出即便A、B均成立，還可以得到C不成立。 這樣的“organization”顯示了強大的邏輯思辨能力。

因此，GMAT 作文考試要求考生不僅僅零散地找到幾個邏輯錯誤，而且要合理地組織邏輯錯誤的呈現順序,讓文章的段落之間連貫一致，渾然一體。

要點 3：effectively supports the main points of the critique

關鍵詞：main points of the critique

此條標準與上文中第一條評分標準，即identifies important features非常一致，強調鑑別一篇駁論文的重要特徵以及主要邏輯漏洞。

要點 4：demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety

關鍵詞：variety

用詞用句的變化性能有效地體現行文語言的多樣性。

要點 5：demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors

關鍵詞：standard written English, may have minor errors

1. standard written English

即使用標準的書面英語。英語口語體不合適用於GMAT這類準學術型的分析性寫作中。 因此考生應注意標準的書面英語的語法，用詞和文法。

2. may have minor errors

GMAT作文允許有錯誤的存在。考官認為，一篇滿分的文章可以有錯誤，尤其是個別的拼寫錯誤、語法錯誤和用詞不當。這不影響一篇文章得高分。 只要這篇文章準確地提煉了要點、做到了精確的對應匹配、邏輯性強、語言水平高即可。

　　範文賞析

　　GMAT Argument22

The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.

“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.”

　　Answer：

This editorial asserts that property taxes for railroad companies should be lowered by the government. The first reason stated is that railroads spend a great deal of money every year maintaining and upgrading facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by railroad is both cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is not convincing for several reasons.

First of all, the argument relies on an inaccurate comparison between railroad and truck company expenditure. Even though trucking companies do not pay property tax on the roads they use, they do pay taxes on the property they use, including the warehouses and the maintenance facilities they own. While trucking companies pay only a part of the total road maintenance cost, this is because the roads are public and were not designed for the sole use of the truck companies. Railroad companies must assume the entirety of maintenance and tax fees on their own facilities and tracks because they are privately owned; they have the chance to mitigate the costs by distributing these costs to other users through usage fees.

Additionally, the author unwarrantedly assumes that property taxes should be structured in order to provide for cost-effective and environmentally-friendly business practices. This assumption is dubitable because the fundamental use of property tax is to reflect the value of the property being taxed. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effective and environmentally-sound measures are relevant in equal proportion to tax relief. However, these are considerations which are totally separate. The impact of a practice on environment might be useful for determining tax structuring, but society does not automatically reward a business for its cost-efficiency.

Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact underscores an equivocal assertion in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it may be appropriate for me to ship furniture by rail because it is the most cost-effective choice; on the other hand, it may be socially and environmentally responsible to encourage railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus balances social correctness on the one hand, and personal values on the other.

In conclusion, this argument is a confusion of flimsy comparisons, conflated issues and highly ambiguous claims. I would not accept the conclusion without more information regarding tax structure, whether specific tax benefits should extend to property as well as to income and capital gains taxes, whether railway shipping does indeed provide increased social benefits, and whether it is justifiable to motivate increased railway shipping on this basis.