GRE写作部分将重点考察考生有针对性地对具体考题做出反应的能力，而非要求考生堆砌泛泛的文字。具体说来，这些重点关注的能力包括：1、 清楚有效地阐明复杂观点；2、 用贴切的事理和事例支撑观点；3、考察/验证他人论点及其相关论证；4、支撑一个有针对性的连贯的讨论；5、控制标准书面英语的各个要素。写作部分将联合考察逻辑推理和分析写作两种技能，并且将加大力度引进那些需要考生做出有针对性的回应的考题，降低考生依赖事前准备（如背诵）的材料的可能性。
First of all, since the bridge is 20 years old it is unfair to assign blame for recent traffic
problems and deterioration to Durant or to anyone else involved in the initial bridgebuilding
project. Given this time span it seems reasonable that these problems are due to ordinary
wear and tear rather than to a design defect. Moreover, it is entirely possible that unforeseen
developments during the last 20 years are partly responsible for the deterioration and traffic
problems. For example, perhaps growth in the area's population, and therefore increased
bridge traffic, has been greater than could have been anticipated 20 years ago.
Secondly, the editorial concludes without adequate evidence that if Durant had approved a
184
wider and better-designed bridge none of the current problems would have occurred. This
amounts to fallacious reasoning. Just because a bridge that Durant approved has experienced
certain problems, one cannot reasonably conclude that without that particular bridge the same
problems would not have occurred.
Thirdly, the editorial relies primarily on an analogy between River Bridge and Derby Bridge,
yet provides no evidence that the two bridges are similar in ways that are relevant to the
argument. Even assuming weather conditions are generally the same at both locations, a
variety of other factors might explain why the River Bridge problems have not occurred at the
Derby Bridge. Perhaps relatively few people traverse the Derby Bridge; or perhaps the Derby
Bridge is relatively new; or perhaps the comparatively long span of the Derby Bridge places
less structural stress on any given point. In short, without ruling out other factors that might
explain why similar problems have not occurred at the Derby bridge this argument by analogy
is untenable.
Finally, the argument assumes that mere approval of the proposed bridge is tantamount to
causation of traffic and deterioration problems. But the editorial fails to indicate why Durant
approved the bridge in the first place. It is quite possible, for example, that it was the only
feasible plan, and that Durant had no choice. Moreover, common sense tells me that
deterioration and traffic problems are consequences of poor planning and engineering, and
therefore more likely caused by negligence of engineers and planners than by politicians.
In conclusion, the editorial is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the
editorial's author must provide evidence that conditions which might have contributed to the
bridge's deterioration and to traffic problems were reasonably foreseeable 20 years ago, and
that some other feasible bridge design would have avoided the current problems. In order to
better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about what choices Durant had
at the time, as well as more information about the age of the Derby bridge and about how
heavily that bridge is used compared to the River bridge.
感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（110） 》一文，出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。