下面是小編為大家搜索整理的有關新gre官方范文分析第一篇，接下來幾天小編將給大家分享新gre作文官方范文全解析，希望對備考新gre作文的同學有所幫助。

　　第一篇文章

　　Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing or any light-reflecting material . Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

　　原題邏輯順序為：數據顯示了對保護裝備的需求==〉展開說明這個數據是怎樣顯示這樣的需求的==〉結論：為了達到這個效果我們應該重金買這保護設備。

　　Benchmark 6

　　The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前兩句首先肯定了原命題中值得肯定的地方。這是求同存異的表現。注意這里第一句作者同意原命題的同時，在第二句緊接著就給出了展開的證明。而沒有光是羅列觀點。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再說原命題是存在邏輯漏洞的，即它因。這里并沒有展開論證，因為這是全文的中心句，整個文章都在后面給予論證。同時，最后半句給出了論據中的潛在后果。

　　First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear and protective gear . body打頭第一段是屬于攻擊總前提假設的，作者認為這個是有必要在討論一切之前弄清楚的。論證方法為質疑假設，加條件后討論，提出建議。實際上，這個前提對應的就是開頭段的前兩句話。深層的含義就是，盡管我在開頭對你的某一個部分作了讓步似的同意，但是這個同意也是建立在一定的假設基礎上的，要是這個假設搞不清楚，哼哼我讓不讓步還不一定呢!本段就來討論這個假設基礎。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the other is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 這兩句分別從兩個方面進行了論述，為本段第一句話的論證進行服務，每一方面的具體方法是先定義，再比較。論證方法為加上不同的條件后進行討論，比如前一句話假定只有防護性裝備會怎樣，后一句話假定只有保護性裝備會怎么樣。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 這里提出了作者的建議，即如何通過進一步的完善使原命題更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果這個問題解決了后面的討論才能繼續。所以說，總的來說這一段是討論了原文一個核心的前提。 The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not.從本段起，連著的三個自然段就是按照原文邏輯鏈的順序進行攻擊和質疑。實際上，這三段對應的就是開頭段的however之后的話。本段先質疑了人的本質的差異。論證方法是加條件后討論。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.以上三句話展開證明第一個分支觀點，論證方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段論。加入常識性條件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保護裝置==〉配戴裝置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。 Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上兩句展開證明第二個分支觀點，論證方法同樣為大名鼎鼎的三段論，加上常識性條件。即街道公園本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人會選擇安全的地方==〉來這里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。這里最后一點是我給補充上的，原文沒有論證完全，但是基本的框架還是有的。

　　The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻擊邏輯鏈的第二步，受傷的程度沒有說清。這里的論證方法核心是質疑隱含假設，加條件后討論。 The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隱含假設。This is certainly not the case.指出它錯了。 Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends , skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人們晚上去滑的人多這個條件后討論，最終削弱原命題。

　　Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻擊邏輯聯的第三步，質量好的不一定有用。核心論證方法為列舉它因和提出建議。 For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.簡單的t-shirt也能很有用。 Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.

　　建議我們對器材考慮得更加全面些。

　　The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.強調原文的初衷還是很好的，就好像兩個人在那里辯論，范文把原文給說急了，范文怕原文不高興了，就再哄哄他：別看我罵了這么多，你的初衷還是好的嘛!值得肯定。 Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最終還是委婉的表達了自己的建議。After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后補充論證自己的建議：論證方法為反證法。同時范文在最后嚇唬一嚇原文，告訴他不這樣做的可怕的后果。 　Reader Comment on 6

　　This outstanding response demonstrates the writers insightful analytical skills.

　　The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompts fallacious reasoning could ...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear, is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the arguments root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:

　　that preventive and protective gear are not the same

　　that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious

　　that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries

　　that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

　　The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.

　　In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6.

　　小總結：

　　分析原題目中可取之處;指出原文中不足之處;推出論據中的潛在后果。正文中第一段質疑我認為的核心假設錯誤，后三段按原文邏輯順序攻擊三點，如本文中人的本質==〉人受的傷的差別==〉為防受傷，買質量好的就有用?可以看出，這三點是與原文中三段論式論證環環相扣的。這就是前面第一部分講解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具體應用。

　　邏輯方面的論證方法為：尋找并質疑隱含假設，列舉它因，加條件后討論，提出建議。

　　在語言方面的論證手法有：分情況討論，舉反例推繆。

　　最后的時候還是要首先肯定原文的可取之處如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善會有什么后果。

　　以上是新gre作文官方范文分析第一篇，大家在備考新gre作文時可以根據以上要點進行適當的備考。

　　下面是小編為大家搜索整理的有關新gre官方范文分析第一篇，接下來幾天小編將給大家分享新gre作文官方范文全解析，希望對備考新gre作文的同學有所幫助。

　　第一篇文章

　　Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing or any light-reflecting material . Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

　　原題邏輯順序為：數據顯示了對保護裝備的需求==〉展開說明這個數據是怎樣顯示這樣的需求的==〉結論：為了達到這個效果我們應該重金買這保護設備。

　　Benchmark 6

　　The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. 前兩句首先肯定了原命題中值得肯定的地方。這是求同存異的表現。注意這里第一句作者同意原命題的同時，在第二句緊接著就給出了展開的證明。而沒有光是羅列觀點。However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear. 再說原命題是存在邏輯漏洞的，即它因。這里并沒有展開論證，因為這是全文的中心句，整個文章都在后面給予論證。同時，最后半句給出了論據中的潛在后果。

　　First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear and protective gear . body打頭第一段是屬于攻擊總前提假設的，作者認為這個是有必要在討論一切之前弄清楚的。論證方法為質疑假設，加條件后討論，提出建議。實際上，這個前提對應的就是開頭段的前兩句話。深層的含義就是，盡管我在開頭對你的某一個部分作了讓步似的同意，但是這個同意也是建立在一定的假設基礎上的，要是這個假設搞不清楚，哼哼我讓不讓步還不一定呢!本段就來討論這個假設基礎。Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the other is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. 這兩句分別從兩個方面進行了論述，為本段第一句話的論證進行服務，每一方面的具體方法是先定義，再比較。論證方法為加上不同的條件后進行討論，比如前一句話假定只有防護性裝備會怎樣，后一句話假定只有保護性裝備會怎么樣。The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. 這里提出了作者的建議，即如何通過進一步的完善使原命題更加的有力。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial. 如果這個問題解決了后面的討論才能繼續。所以說，總的來說這一段是討論了原文一個核心的前提。 The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not.從本段起，連著的三個自然段就是按照原文邏輯鏈的順序進行攻擊和質疑。實際上，這三段對應的就是開頭段的however之后的話。本段先質疑了人的本質的差異。論證方法是加條件后討論。If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.以上三句話展開證明第一個分支觀點，論證方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段論。加入常識性條件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保護裝置==〉配戴裝置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。 Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. 以上兩句展開證明第二個分支觀點，論證方法同樣為大名鼎鼎的三段論，加上常識性條件。即街道公園本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人會選擇安全的地方==〉來這里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。這里最后一點是我給補充上的，原文沒有論證完全，但是基本的框架還是有的。

　　The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.攻擊邏輯鏈的第二步，受傷的程度沒有說清。這里的論證方法核心是質疑隱含假設，加條件后討論。 The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. 指出原隱含假設。This is certainly not the case.指出它錯了。 Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends , skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. 加上人們晚上去滑的人多這個條件后討論，最終削弱原命題。

　　Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear.攻擊邏輯聯的第三步，質量好的不一定有用。核心論證方法為列舉它因和提出建議。 For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.簡單的t-shirt也能很有用。 Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.

　　建議我們對器材考慮得更加全面些。

　　The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives.強調原文的初衷還是很好的，就好像兩個人在那里辯論，范文把原文給說急了，范文怕原文不高興了，就再哄哄他：別看我罵了這么多，你的初衷還是好的嘛!值得肯定。 Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. 范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最終還是委婉的表達了自己的建議。After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all. 最后補充論證自己的建議：論證方法為反證法。同時范文在最后嚇唬一嚇原文，告訴他不這樣做的可怕的后果。 　Reader Comment on 6

　　This outstanding response demonstrates the writers insightful analytical skills.

　　The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompts fallacious reasoning could ...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear, is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the arguments root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:

　　that preventive and protective gear are not the same

　　that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious

　　that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries

　　that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

　　The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.

　　In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6.

　　小總結：

　　分析原題目中可取之處;指出原文中不足之處;推出論據中的潛在后果。正文中第一段質疑我認為的核心假設錯誤，后三段按原文邏輯順序攻擊三點，如本文中人的本質==〉人受的傷的差別==〉為防受傷，買質量好的就有用?可以看出，這三點是與原文中三段論式論證環環相扣的。這就是前面第一部分講解awintro中提到的analytical writing的具體應用。

　　邏輯方面的論證方法為：尋找并質疑隱含假設，列舉它因，加條件后討論，提出建議。

　　在語言方面的論證手法有：分情況討論，舉反例推繆。

　　最后的時候還是要首先肯定原文的可取之處如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。要是思考的不完善會有什么后果。

　　以上是新gre作文官方范文分析第一篇，大家在備考新gre作文時可以根據以上要點進行適當的備考。