[习作点评] 第一篇ISSUE和第一篇ARGUE，请各位大侠狠狠拍 [复制链接]

lisalin8899
UID: 2989211

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 43
注册时间: 2011-1-9
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-1-9 15:09:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

花了两天时间搞完本人的第一篇ISSUE和ARGUE，终于体会到GRE作文的博大精深和本人语言功底和逻辑思维的稀烂，希望各位大侠帮忙指教，能提多少是多少，体无完肤也无所谓，不甚感激

ISSUE 2       competition is more beneficial than detrimental to society  （560 words）

The splendid progress and creativities made through the nearly 300 years of the human beings contributes to the competition. To retrospect the evolvement of human society history, the institutional competition, including politics and economics, is the essential impetus for society in which the monopolistic politics and economics is bound to decay and break down. Everyone in the society strives to compete since only the winner can obtain the better development, so the human
society is propelled via the efforts of the competitors.
Competition, at present, is ubiquitous and benefits every realm of the society. The most prominent advantage is to boost the economic and prompt the creativities of technology. How to utilize the finite resources to satisify the infinite requisites of society is indeed the value of the competition. In the earlier seventies, the formation of economic is simple and monoply, so the profit and the activity of the industries who even
reject improving the service and quality of the productivities are low. Until competition is introduced, the society will choose the one who can use the lowest cost to create the best productivities. As a familiar circumstance, bids for the achitecture project aims to choose the qualified cooperation to fulfill the project excellently. So
as the technology, since the augmentation of the IT companies, the new technologies are brought frequently in order to captivate the consumers and seize the macket. The incessant emergence of wireless technologies, for instance, is contributed to the fierce competition of mobile telecommunication. 3G has just substituted 2G to become the mainstream wireless technology, the 4G is newly emerging now. You never imagine how fast the replacement of the technologies will be. The propulsion of the competition almost changes the society and pepole's quotidian life.
Competition also changes the substance of politics from the autocracy to the democracy. In the earlier centuries,
since the ecclesia was instituted by the endeavor of Pericles in ancient Greek, it accelerates the revolution of politics--majority of citizens were endowed with suffrage. Democracy, as an idea originated from Greek, was carried to Europe and Americas. In modern America, the democratic system is more refined on the surface. It works better in reflecting the roles and contributions of each citizen--citizens have rights to choose their favorable president. The candidates, therefore, must work painstakingly to provide the best product, not the Utopia, to contend for the favor of citizens. Furthermore, the aspired young men can compete for the official positions via showing their competences and everyone has the oportunity to serve for the society. Disparity and cronyism would be diminished and the society political mechanism turns to be fresh and active.
However, the modern society is not more free competition, it needs sequence and system, which requires the regulation through a series of detailed law. Since the <<Sherman Antitrust Act>> promulgated earliest in the America in 1890, the society concerns the significance of forbidding and penalizing the illegitimate competitive deeds. The media is the most
prevailing method, at present, to supervise the competition. It reveals the foul deeds and urges the aboveboard ones. The regular competition is more and more beneficial to the society.
  Darwin's theory of evolution, proposed in the mid-nineteenth century, describes pertinetly that members of species are forced
to struggle for survival. Maybe this is the essence of competition which becomes the impetus of the society nicely.

ARGUE 2  a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners (395 words)

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."

In this letter, the committee recommends that Deerhaven can increase the average property values through adopting their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To substantiate the conclusion, the committee points
out that the average property values have risen since Brookville adopted a similar set of restrictions in seven years. However, the argument is problematic for three faults with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.
Most obviously, the committee of Deerhaven Acres commits a fallacy of hasty generalization, even if it does not follow that the restriction on the landscaping and house painting can increase the property values in Brookville. The committee negelects to provide any solid information concerning the adopted restriction is helpful for rising the average property values. Perhaps, it didn't implement the restrictions, then the change of property values cannot be attributed to them.
Besides, the committee fails to consider other possible factors have contributed to the increase in Brookville, since a particularly long time has passed since Brookville has adopted the restrictions. Such alternatives may include the surroundings and conditions, or the influx of major employers. There are plenty of subway stations and bus stations, for instance, constituting a convenient transportation system for the homeowners living in the Brookville. Furthermore, it's possible that the supermarkets and department stores nearby can supply the abundant commodities and necessities. Also in reference to the public security, the Brookville community may guarantee a comfortable and favorable circumstances for all
homeowners.
Finally, there are many dissimilarities between the two communities that the analogies are suspect. It's more likely the
homeowners or home-buyers in Deerhaven are not concerned with the house painting or even oppose to change the exterior feature
of houses in which case adopting the restrictions may be counterproductive. Accordingly, the committee cannot draw any firm conclusion about what resulted in rising property values in Brookville can bring about the same result in Deerhaven without
ruling these.
Overall, the conclusion lacks credibility since the evidence cited by the committee is neither sound nor persuasive. To make the argument more convincing, the committee should make a detailed investigation about the Deerhaven Acres and evaluate
all possible alternatives for increasing the average property values before any final decisions are made about adopting the restrictions on landscaping and house
painting.