GRE寫(xiě)作滿(mǎn)分范文三十七

Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.  Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.  But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.  Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.  

At first look, this seems to be a very well presented arguement.  A logical path is followed throughout the paragraph and the conclusion is expected.  However, upon a second consideration, it is apparent that all possibilities were not considered when the author presented his conclusion (or at least that s/he did not present all of the possibilities). There are numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased.  Although it seems logical to assume that the difference in the percentage of accidents was due to the difference in whether or not the speed limit had been increased during the specified month, this does not necessarily mean that the speed limit should be reduced back to what it originally was in Forestville.  The author does not state two specific pieces of information that are important before a conclusion such as the one the author made is sound.  The first is that it is not expressed whether the speed limits in the two neighboring regions had had the same speed limit before Forestville's speed limit had been increased.  If they had originally been the same, then it is reasonable to conclude that Forestville's speed limit should be reduced back to what it was before the increase.  However, if the two region's speed limits were initially different, then such a conclusion can not be made.  The second piece of information that is necessary for the present argument is the relative number of accidents in each of the areas prior to the increase in speed limit.  For the author to make the presented conclusion, the number of accidents should have been approximately equal prior to the increase in the speed limit in Forestville.  If the two missing pieces of information had been presented and were in the author's favor, then the conclusion that the author made would have been much more sound than it currently is.  In conclusion, the argument is not entirely well reasoned, but given the information that was expressed in the paragraph, it was presented well, and in a logical order. Comments: 

This competent critique claims that there are "numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased."  However, the author discusses only two points:  

-- whether the speed limits in the two regions were originally the same;  and 

-- the number of accidents in each region prior to Forestville's  raising the speed limit.  

Although the response appears at first to be well developed, there is much less analysis here than the length would suggest.  The first third and last third of the essay are relatively insubstantial, consisting mainly of general summary statements (e.g.:"A logical path" conclusion is expected" and "If the two more sound than it currently is").  The real heart of the critique consists of minimal development of the two points mentioned above.  Therefore, although two important features of the argument are analyzed and the writer handles language and syntax adequately, the lack of substantial development keeps this critique from earning a score higher than 4.