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。
Secondly, the author assumes that some accidents at Alta are caused by fatigue or sleep
deprivation. However, the author overlooks other possible causes, such as inadequate
equipment maintenance or worker training, or the inherent hazards of Alta's manufacturing
processes. By the same token, Panoply's comparatively low accident rate might be attributable
not to the length of its work shifts but rather to other factors, such as superior equipment
maintenance or worker training. In other words, without ruling out alternative causes of
150
on-the-job accidents at both companies, the author cannot justifmbly conclude that merely by
emulating Panoply's work-shift policy Alta would reduce the number of such accidents.
Thirdly, even assuming that Alta's workers are fatigued or sleep-deprived, and that this is the
cause of some of Alta's on-the-job accidents, in order to accept the author's solution to this
problem we must assume that Alta's workers would use the additional hour of free time to
sleep or rest. However, the author provides no evidence that they would use the time in this
manner. It is entirely possible that Alta's workers would use that extra hour to engage in some
other fatiguing activity. Without ruling out this possibility the author cannot convincingly
conclude that reducing Alta's work shifts by one hour would reduce Alta's accident rate.
Finally, a series of problems with the argument arise from the scant statistical information on
which it relies. In comparing the number of accidents at Alta and Panoply, the author fails to
consider that the per-worker accident rate might reveal that Alta is actually safer than Panoply,
depending on the total number of workers at each company. Second, perhaps accident rates
at the two companies last year were aberrations, and during other years Alta's accident rate
was no greater, or even lower, than Panoply's rate. Or perhaps Panoply is not representative
of industrial companies generally, and that other companies with shorter work shifts have even
higher accident rates. In short, since the argument relies on very limited statistical information I
cannot take the author's recommendation seriously.
感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（94） 》一文，出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。