The nation of Claria covers a vast physical area. But despite wide geographic differences, many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity. A recent study of household electric costs in Claria found that families who cooled their houses with fans alone spent more on electricity than did families using air conditioners alone for cooling. However, those households that reported using both fans and air conditioners spent less on electricity than those households that used either fans or air conditioners alone. Thus, the citizens of Claria should follow the study's recommendation and use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity.

　　[建议，根据不科学调查]

　　In this argument, the arguer recommends that Claria should advise its citizens to install both air conditioners and fans for cooling in order to reduce the cost of electricity. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that many citizens of Claria suffer from the rising costs of electricity. In addition, he cites the result of a recent study that using fans alone costs more than using air conditioners alone, and that using both air conditioners and fans costs less than either using fans or air conditioners alone. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

　　In the first place, the arguer fails to take into account the geographical factors in the analysis. While we are informed that there are wide geographical differences in the nation of Claria, and that many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity, the arguer fails to make clear the exact number of those citizens or their percentage in the national population, as well as the geographical distribution of these citizens. If only a small portion of the whole population are experiencing the rising costs of electricity while most families do not have similar experience, then the reason might be that the former do not use electricity sparingly. In this case, the rising costs of those families have nothing to do with what kind of electric appliance they use to cool their houses. Or if only families living in hot areas are spending more money on cooling, then it is unwise to require citizens living in temperate and frigid zones to install both fans and air conditioners. In the absence of all this information, it is impossible for us to evaluate the recommended policy that is intended to help every household nationwide to reduce their electricity cost.

　　In the second place, the comparison in this argument is incomplete and selective. The arguer discovers that using fans alone is more cost effective than using air conditioners alone, and that using both fans and air conditioners are the least expensive way of cooling. However, the arguer fails to provide any information regarding the actual amount of time for using, respectively, fans alone, air conditioners alone, and both fans and air conditioners in those three groups of surveyed families. It is very likely that these three groups of families are located in three very different climatic regions of Claria, and hence the amount of days of the year during which they need to cool their houses varies significantly. Families living in cooler areas of the nation certainly cool their houses for fewer hours and hence use less electricity than families living in hot areas, no matter what cooling appliance they use. Unless we are certain that the surveyed families live in the same climatic region, or that they need to cool their houses for the same amount of hours in the same year although they live in different regions, which is very unlikely, we have every reason to doubt the trustworthiness of this comparative study. Furthermore, the arguer ignores the possibility that the families who are spending more on electricity may be using more electricity for purposes other-than cooling. Unless the arguer also takes this factor into consideration, the comparison is unconvincing.

　　To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the percentage of the affected families and their geographical distribution. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the electric expense relevant to the actual amount of time for cooling among, respectively, the three groups of households and the amount of electricity used for other purposes in all three groups of families under survey.

　　如何培养GRE作文考试逻辑思维

　　一、找准主题，集中突破

　　一个好的主题，通常都是采用滴水映海洋，粒沙藏世界的手法。从一滴水里能看到大海的样子，从一粒沙中能展现整个世界，这是多么地不容易呀!但是，好主题通常就是这样表达出来的。每位GRE作文考友专业背景、准备时间与英语基础各不一样，在作文中面临的问题当然也不一样：有些是语言和思想都很出色，有些是有思想但表达不出来，有些是英语好但思路打不开，一个作文小组只有几个人或者十几个人，就能够看出这些差别来，用一种统一的方法来进行准备，未必对每个人都意味着高效率。

　　二、避免低效率低水平

　　写作能力很强的同学，通常的一件事会把握怎样写，如何写，哪些该祥，哪些该略，哪些该修饰，哪些该平白，驾驭文字的功夫很是了得。文采不是每个人天生就有的，它是一个逐步积累、逐步升华、逐步成熟的过程，需要去大量阅读、长期积累、心灵感悟、凝练提取的再创造本领，这要在日常学习中逐步提高，很多GRE作文考友干劲十足，一天一篇issue或者argument，但如果基本问题不解决而沉溺于题海战术中，往往是事倍功半。即使GRE作文考友帮助你修改得很好，但你并不能透彻了解自己语法或者思维方式错误的根源在哪里，那就只能寄希望于把每一篇改过的都背下来然后在考试时碰上。如果记得不牢或者根本没碰上，问题就大了。我喜欢实践-理论-实践这种螺旋式的进步方法，先找到问题，然后有针对性地进行系统性的学习，打好基础;感觉有提高了再来实践，再发现问题再提高。

　　三、重点准备GRE作文提纲

　　这一点是承接第二点的。题海战术有两个问题：一是没有解决根本问题，二是机会成本过高。所谓机会成本，就是你花的时间过多，而这些时间本来可以用来做更有意义的事情，比如说记单词，学习语法或者看书开拓思路。设想你英文很差，但你写作很努力，在考试时又碰上了写过的题目，你的作文得了5分以上，但verbal只有300多分，人家一眼就能看出你的真实水平来。所以我觉得在打基础的同时，要把重点放在提纲也就是思路的准备上。

　　四、选择性地练习实战写作

　　试想一下，如果你在考试时面对题目，最可能使你心慌的是什么?那可能就是这道题没见过，不知从哪下手;如果你想过了，即使你没写过，你也不会太紧张。我备考时只写了两篇issue和两篇argument，时间主要花在熟悉题目上，argument看得少一些，issue看了一半左右，有点轻敌了，如果全看的话就会更沉着。

　　以上就是GRE写作满分经验的分享，考生们可以在避免出现同样类型错误的同时，再继续加强新GRE作文复习的脚步。