GMAT写作是GMAT考试中的一个重要组成部分，考生在备考阶段一定不要忽视GMAT写作的重要作用。接下来小编将结合具体的题目分析为大家带来GMAT写作结论无据逻辑错误真题解析，希望对大家的写作备考有帮助。
GMAT写作结论无据逻辑错误
结论无据，指得出的结论是毫无根据的，或者是前面的假设是不能成立的。这里的假设一般都是可以导致“果”的因，但没有足够证据证明这个因是存在的。如：因为人们更喜欢吃雪糕了，所以推断雪糕的销量增高。但是，事实更有可能是由于雪糕的利润降低，生产商为了降低成本决定减少雪糕的奶油含量，更有可能使得雪糕没以前那么好吃，从而导致销量下降。因为这个前提是没有依据的，所以结论也是不确定的。
结论无据的英文表达是：Gratuitous assumption
The author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that.... However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is more likely that.... Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
结论无据逻辑错误的特点
1. 考生在审题时对于题干的结论要十分关注，对于里面的逻辑链要非常清楚才能准确的做出判断。
2. 结论无据中，推出这个结论的原因是完全错误的而且是没有根据的，考生可以针对这个错误的原因进行攻击。更多相关内容请点击》GMAT写作零基础该如何备考。
结论无据逻辑错误真题解析
The following appeared as part of an article in a trade magazine:
"During a recent trial period in which government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent, the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year's level. If the government were to institute more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. In the meantime, consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection because>Excel's main processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report." Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
翻译： 最近的试用期内，政府增加了检测被选肉处理设备的频率，处理过的鸡肉样本内的细菌数量比前一年的水平下降了50%。如果政府早就开始更频繁的检测，国内的肠胃感染范围应该可以缩减一半。同时，Excel Meat的消费者应该不会被感染了，因为政府报告显示，Excel的主要处理设备在灭菌方面的提高比其他任何设备都多。
分析：1.时地全等，政府检测频率增加与肉类细菌含量的减少的相关性在未来收入未必会持续。因为这一相关性在时间轴上是一个变量，因此在未来可能因为外界条件的变化而使这一相关性不再成立。比如随着肉类细菌含量已经降低到标准以下，工厂不再有动力继续降低细菌含量。2.无因果联系，即使这一相关性在未来会继续，这也未必说明政府的检测就是肉类细菌含量减少的原因。因为这两者仅仅是时间相关，可能有其他的原因导致肉类细菌含量的减少。比如肉类灭菌技术的发展与应用。3.结论无据，即使政府检测的增加会导致肉类细菌含量的减少，这也不一定保证E公司的产品是安全的。因为E公司的设备好不代表这个设备一直是在正常的运转。如果设备出现了故障，或是工厂为了节省成本没有开启设备，那么E公司的灭菌效果就会不如预期。
参考范文：
The argument states that the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased half on average from the previous year's level because of frequent government inspection. Therefore, if government were to institute more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections could drop in half. Furthermore, because Excel's main plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than plants cited in the report, excel's meat product should be safe to its consumers. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the main conclusion of the argument is that if government conducted more inspection, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections could decrease in half. The argument assumes that more inspection leads to decreased amount of bacteria in meat, and then decreased amount of bacteria in meat leads to less incidence of infections. Consider that there might be other reasons that cause incidence of infections other than decreased amount of bacteria in meat. For example, what if bacteria in dirty water was the real reason causing the infections, if it is true, reducing the amount of bacteria in meat could not help reduce the chance of those infections.Thus, the argument is poor reasoning unless other possible explanations have been considered and ruled out.
Second, the author uses the positive correlation between government inspection and decreased amount of bacteria in meat to establish causality. However, the fact that government inspection coincides with decreased amount of bacteria in meat dose not necessary prove that the former event is responsible for the latter. If the argument had provided evidence that government inspection was the only reason that the amount of bacteria in meat decreased, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Third, the author fails to prove that plants cited in the report are representative of all plants in the industry and that Excel’s main plant is representative of all plants within the company. Also the author provides no information whether the level that Excel’s main plant has improved to is above that safe needed. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
以上就是GMAT写作结论无据逻辑错误真题解析的全部内容，希望考生能不断改进自己的学习方法，提升效率获得理想的成绩，更多相关内容百利天下小编会持续为大家送上，祝大家都能早日梦圆名校。
您还可能关注：
