GRE argument演绎推理写作分析，主要通过写作题库的例题分析，帮助考生理顺写作思路和应对方法，经过练习和掌握方法之后，可以自信的应对GRE argument写作。
GRE argument演绎推理的题目主要包含前提以及结论，如果考生能够轻松的分析出题目中的前提以及结论，那么就可以真正的对症下药，分析出题目中的逻辑漏洞。
GRE argument演绎推理题目分析。
argument官方题目23.
The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist. "Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children i n Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
论证方法分析：
题目中论者主要运用 一个演绎推理论证法。论者Dr. Kaip有以下的推理过程：
大前提：如果Tertia岛上的孩子是被村里人集体养大的，他们在言谈中应该经常谈及抚养
他们长大的忖里人。
小前提:这些孩子在Dr.Karp主持的访谈中谈的更多的是亲生父母而不是其他人。(这个小前提实际上是大前提的逆否命题)
结论：Dr. Field得出的Tertia岛上的孩子是被村里入而非亲生父母养大的判断是锗误的，因而他的研究方法也是错误的。
题目分析：
1.论据(1)(2)提到，这两位专家的研究前后相距20年，对同一课题的研究结论差异较大。若要论据(1)(2)有效，论者势必要假设：首先，20年来，Tertia岛上居民的生活方式、 文化传统没有发生根本性的变化。在此期间，该岛屿同外界(比如大陆居民)没有频繁的交往和相互影响。其次，20年间，包括Tertia岛的那一组岛屿(也就懋Dr. Karp最近去访问的那些岛屿彼此间没有相互影响.文化和生活习俗都不一致。
2.论者在论据(2)中的推论实际蕴含了一个假设：即，如果孩子是被村里人集体抚养的话， 那么这些孩子谈话中不会老提及亲生父母。但这个假设是否科学、是否经得起推敲尚不得而知。其次，题目中提到，Dr Karp访谈的孩子不只是来自Tertia岛，还包括其他岛上的孩子。那么.Dr Karp要假设：在他访问的孩子中来自Tenia岛的孩子的比例不至于过小。否则.他很有可能是在用其他岛的岛民的生活习俗来推测Tertia岛上的生活习俗。 这显然有问题。第三.Dr. Karp的推论还要假设，其访谈题目的设计是科学、可靠的。如果设计的问题具有很强的倾向性和诱导性，那么他的结论就很可疑。最后，这些孩子有没有可能在回答问题时受到情绪的干扰?他们的回答是否客观、可信?他们有无可能因为特别想知道自己的亲生父母而不自觉地讲了很多关于亲生父母的事情?这些都是待定的假设。
3.在结论中，Dr .Karp断言Dr. Field的研究结论失实、其研究方法是错误的，而自己的研究方法会得出更准确的结论。这里同样有一连串的假设：比如.Dr. Karp怍为一位权威专家，他 的判断就是中立、客观的。两位专家不同的结论中.必定有一个是错误的。未来的研究和更多的证据不会证明Dr. Karp是错的，或者俩人都有正确的地方等等。
英文提纲：
论点:论者有两个论点，包括对别人的否定和对自己的肯定.
1)My research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well.
2)The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures.
论据：
(1) Twenty years ago. Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents.
(2) However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village.
通过以上关于GRE argument演绎推理写作分析的题目解析，希望考生可以精确的分析题目中隐含的各种信息，更好的提高写作成绩!
您还可能关注：
