总体来说，GRE的逻辑考察体现在GRE写作，阅读题和逻辑题。GRE的写作，共两篇，其中一篇，也就是第二篇，argument写作，驳论文，是要求考生分析文章里面的逻辑漏洞，指出逻辑错误，进行强有力的攻击，但是不能加入自己的推测。今天小编为考生分享Argument---火眼金睛，识破漏洞。
Argument的逻辑漏洞，一共有七宗罪，分别是：
1. 调查类
2.充分必要条件类错误
3.因果关系错误
4.范围变化类错误
5.考虑问题不全面错误
6.外推类错误
7.其他类错误
调查类逻辑错误，这个比较重要，因为这是一种非常常见的错误
调查包括了调查主体，客体，调查时间，调查的方式，调查的数量，调查的样本。涉及的问题就有：调查主体是否可信值得怀疑，调查对象覆盖面是否足够广，人数基数是否足够大，所占比例是否足够大，调查对象的回答是否反映了真实意愿等等。
例1：据调查，当地农民的的收入很高，因此，当地的农产品卖得很贵。
这个中文例子，有一个“据调查”，这里我们需要去反驳它，谁调查的，是否是可信的权威的，调查的是什么人，是否客观真实的回答，是否数量够多，样本是否随机，是否具有代表性，这是对调查的主体和客体的提问。其次，调查的方式是否合理，是通过问卷调查还是匿名调查，会不会因为调查方式的原因，客体会给出不真实的答案。
例2 这是一篇官方范文。重点看第二段，这是对调查类的错误，进行了分析。我们可以学习它的语音和风格。
In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is therefore sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly to persuade the city government to allocate increased funding.
作者首先指出漏洞所在，再说这个是有逻辑错误的。接着，进行具体举例，说明可能存在的调查类的错误，调查方式的错误，调查对象不具有代表性，调查问卷不合理性等等，说明调查结果的不可靠。
以上就会关于Argument---火眼金睛，识破漏洞的全面内容。更多GRE备考信息请登录前程百利GRE考试网站或拨打前程百利GRE考试热线400-890-6000咨询。
您还可能关注：
