GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：children playing softball and soccer

　　The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily Newspaper:

　　"Throughout the country last year, as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth-league softball and soccer. Over 80,000 of these young players suffered injuries. When interviewed for a recent study, youth-league softball players in several major cities also reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents. Furthermore, education experts say that long practice sessions for these sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. Since the disadvantages apparently outweigh any advantages, we in Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine."

　　满分范文赏析

　　This letter concludes that Parkville should not allow children under age nine to participate in organized competitive sports because of the rate of injury, psychological pressure on children from adult organizers and the reduction in time available for academic pursuits.

　　【此段结构】

　　本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E 的开头结构。概括原文的C(Conclusion)同时给出原文为了支持他的结论所引用的主要E(evidence)。【此段功能】

　　本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论：Parkville(简称P)地区不能让9岁以下儿童参与竞技体育活动。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：rate of injury, pschological pressure和academic time减少，论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。

　　One of the major problems with the argument is that it relies on the assumption that the nationwide statistics about the incidence of sports injuries among youngsters applies equally to Parkville's children—this might not be the case. Perhaps Parkville maintains more stringent safety standards than the national norm. Maybe children's sporting events in Parkville are better supervised. These peculiarities may offset the national averages. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that Parkville has a sports-injury problem to begin with.

　　【此段结构】

　　本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

　　【此段功能】

　　本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误。作者认为意向关于运动受伤的nationwide数据不能用来说明Parkville的情况。接下来，作者指出Parkville地区可能存在的与其他地区不同的因素来驳斥原文观点。例如P地区有more stringent safety standards，或者P地区儿童在体育锻炼时被很好的监护。在没有排除这些可能性的情况下，引用全国调查是不可靠的。

　　Another troubling issue is that the argument assumes that in Parkville parents and coaches unduly pressure youngsters to win organized athletic competitions. The only evidence the author provides to substantiate this assumption are the reports from "big city" children—there is no information present on the conditions in Parkville. Perhaps people who live in big cities are generally more competitive than other people. If so, and if Parkville is not a big city, then the author cannot justifiably rely on these reports.

　　【此段结构】

　　本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

　　【此段功能】

　　本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误。作者认为原文中“P地区的父母教练在竞技体育中给孩子很大的压力”存在逻辑错误。作者提出，原文引用的是一个关于“big city”报告，而没有提出关于P地区的证据。进一步，作者给出其他可能性来反驳原文观点，例如大城市的人要比P地区更competitive，而P地区不是大城市。

　　A third problem with the argument is that it assumes that children do not benefit academically from participating in competitive sports. It is entirely possible that such sports provide children with a break from academics that helps them to be more productive academically. It is also possible that the competitive drive that these sports may instill in young children carries over to their academics and spurs them on in their studies. Without considering the potential academic benefits of organized sports, the author cannot reasonably conclude that for young children the disadvantages of participating in athletic competition outweigh the benefits.

　　【此段结构】

　　本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

　　【此段功能】

　　本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果(忽略他因)。原文中关于“参加竞技体育活动对儿童的学习没有帮助”的论点存在逻辑错误。作者提出其他可能性来反驳这一观点，例如：体育运动给儿童break，使他们学习效率更高;竞技体育活动使儿童在学习中更有上进心。