GRE寫(xiě)作經(jīng)典范文詳細(xì)解析7

　　Issue　　The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.

　　"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television——programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.——should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."

　　The author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage crime in the country of Alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950's when television was introduced in the average home. In addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. The write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

　　Firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in Alta to the increase in violence shown on television but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. Furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. For example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. Perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a percentage of the population, teen crime is even less than it was before. Without ruling out these and other causes, the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between television violence and teenage crime.

　　Secondly, the author mentions national studies that show that young children that watch violent programs show more violent behavior at home than children who do not watch such programs. This argument fails on two levels - one by assuming that children and teenagers are equally affected by television programs; and two by again assuming that there is some type of cause and effect relationship between television violence and teenage crime. Young children and teenagers are not the same and it should not be assumed that more violent behavior within the home leads to crimes outside as these children grow into teenagers.

　　Thirdly, the author offers a survey showing that ninety percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime time television programs should show less violence. The survey methods are not discussed - it is possible that the sample was improperly chosen or somehow predisposed to include parents that are very much opposed to television violence. Additionally, it is possible that such parents are far more vocal in their opinions than those who care little or not at all about prime time television violence, again skewing the results of the survey. Even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis.

　　Finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. Regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. There is no proof given either that television violence of any kind causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.

　　(602 words)

　　[題目]

　　下述文字摘自一份地方性報(bào)紙《Midvale觀察家》所發(fā)表的社論。

　　"自二十世紀(jì)五十年代以來(lái)，當(dāng)電視機(jī)開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)于尋常百姓家庭時(shí)，Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率已呈現(xiàn)出持續(xù)上升的勢(shì)頭。這一青少年犯罪行為的上升與電視上所播放的暴力畫(huà)面的增加成正比。按照幾份全國(guó)性調(diào)查報(bào)告，在那些大量觀看了涉及到暴力場(chǎng)面的電視節(jié)目的青少年中，即使是極為年幼的孩童在其家庭環(huán)境中也要比那些不看暴力節(jié)目的孩童表現(xiàn)出更多的暴力行為。此外，在一項(xiàng)由《Midvale觀察家》所進(jìn)行的調(diào)查中，有90%的受訪者為父母親，他(她)們表示黃金時(shí)段的電視內(nèi)容——即晚上7點(diǎn)到9點(diǎn)所播放的節(jié)目——應(yīng)該減少播放暴力內(nèi)容。據(jù)此，為了降低Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率，電視觀眾應(yīng)該要求電視節(jié)目編播者減少黃金時(shí)段所播放的暴力畫(huà)面數(shù)量。"

　　[范文正文]

　　本社論作者陳述道，Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率伴隨著電視所播放的暴力場(chǎng)面的增加而上升。這一情形始于二十世紀(jì)五十年代，因?yàn)殡娨曉诋?dāng)時(shí)被引入到普通百姓的家庭。此外，該作者陳述道，幾項(xiàng)全國(guó)性調(diào)查顯示，觀看暴力電視節(jié)目的孩子比那些不看同類節(jié)目的孩子更易于形成暴力傾向。社論作者還指出，一份調(diào)查表明，受訪的90%的父母親認(rèn)為，黃金時(shí)段的電視節(jié)目不應(yīng)含有那么多的暴力場(chǎng)面。最后，作者得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為要想降低Alta國(guó)內(nèi)的青少年犯罪率，電視觀眾應(yīng)要求減少黃金時(shí)段所播放的暴力畫(huà)面。這一論述犯有若干關(guān)鍵性的邏輯謬誤。

　　首先，社論作者將Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率的上升與電視所播放的暴力場(chǎng)面的增加相提并論，但除了二者在時(shí)間上吻合以外，沒(méi)能給出任何因果關(guān)系。該作者沒(méi)有對(duì)不同的犯罪種類作出區(qū)分——青少年所犯的罪行是屬于暴力型的還是非暴力型的。此外，對(duì)于青少年犯罪數(shù)量的增加，還存在著其他一些有可能的原因。例如，或許所有年齡段的所有類型的犯罪行為都呈上升態(tài)勢(shì)，或者也有可能，警察現(xiàn)在要比過(guò)去更擅長(zhǎng)于抓捕青少年犯罪者了。更有可能的是，犯罪上升的原因僅僅只是人口總量的上升所致，并且，作為人口總量中的一個(gè)比例，青少年犯罪現(xiàn)在甚至低于以前的程度。如不排除掉這些以及其他的原因，社論中的論點(diǎn)便無(wú)法令人信服，因?yàn)樽髡邲](méi)有在電視暴力和青少年犯罪之間建立起任何因果關(guān)系。

　　其次，社論作者提到，有幾份全國(guó)性研究表明，觀看暴力節(jié)目的孩童在家里比不看此類節(jié)目的孩童表現(xiàn)出了更多的暴力行為。這一論點(diǎn)在二個(gè)層面上顯得站不住腳——首先是假設(shè)孩童和青少年受到電視節(jié)目同等程度的影響;第二是又一次假定在電視暴力與青少年犯罪之間存在著某種因果關(guān)系。孩童與青少年畢竟并不相同，我們不能做這樣的假定，即家庭中較為暴力的那些行為必然會(huì)隨著這些孩子長(zhǎng)大成為青少年而發(fā)展成為犯罪行為。

　　第三，社論作者給出一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，以期證明90%的回答問(wèn)卷的受訪者均為父母親一類的人，他(她)們提出黃金時(shí)段的電視節(jié)目不應(yīng)該播放如此多的暴力鏡頭。但社論中沒(méi)有討論該調(diào)查所使用的調(diào)查方法是什么。情況有可能是，該調(diào)查的樣本選擇得并不恰當(dāng)，或在某種程度上側(cè)重于只將那些對(duì)電視暴力甚感厭惡的父母親囊括于樣本之中。再則，情況也可能是，這些父母親在表達(dá)其意見(jiàn)時(shí)要比那些對(duì)黃金時(shí)段電視暴力漠不關(guān)心或滿不在乎的人來(lái)得語(yǔ)氣強(qiáng)烈得多，這樣便再度使調(diào)查結(jié)果失之偏頗。即使我們假定所調(diào)查的人口樣本是真實(shí)的，僅僅以此為依據(jù)將電視暴力和青少年犯罪聯(lián)系起來(lái)也是不合邏輯的。 最后，社論作者作出一不必要的假設(shè)，即只要有電視觀眾要求電視節(jié)目編播者減少黃金時(shí)段暴力內(nèi)容的播放量便可降低Alta國(guó)內(nèi)的青少年犯罪率。即使不考慮此前已討論過(guò)的那些含有缺陷的論點(diǎn)，只是去要求作出某種改變并不會(huì)對(duì)青少年犯罪產(chǎn)生任何影響。若要增強(qiáng)其論點(diǎn)的邏輯性，社論作者必須在電視暴力與青少年犯罪之間表明某種直接的因果關(guān)系，而不是作出某些含糊其辭的和缺乏依據(jù)的比較，聲稱存在著某種聯(lián)系。該作者既沒(méi)有拿出證據(jù)證明任何種類的電視暴力導(dǎo)致了青少年的犯罪，也沒(méi)能證明黃金時(shí)段電視暴力的減少將會(huì)防范青少年的違法亂紀(jì)行為。