GMAT作文機(jī)經(jīng)整理：高中減課程會不會增加升學(xué)率降低稅費(fèi).

　　4月5日GMAT換庫后，小編為大家收集整理4月份的GMAT作文機(jī)經(jīng)，這篇是關(guān)于高中減課程會不會增加升學(xué)率，降低稅費(fèi)的文章，分享給大家，希望對大家有所幫助，僅供參考。

　　【原始】

作文：似乎之前哪里看到過的題目，某高中供學(xué)生選的課太多，然后有人拿另一個(gè)private school做比較說人家的課諾，才80幾個(gè)，但升大學(xué)比例很多的諾，所以我們要把那些課減半!我們的升學(xué)率就上去了!很好寫的一道題。。。。

　　【考古】

AWA----CS(應(yīng)該是這個(gè)代碼)這所高校有100種不同的課程，但一個(gè)比較小的私人高校只有80種basic課程，這所小的私人高校進(jìn)大學(xué)的比率比CS這所高校高。于是，減少CS高校的除basic課程以外的種類就可以提高升學(xué)率以及save tax。

　　V2

　　作文 Consolidated High School。 我把機(jī)經(jīng)全刷了一遍~

　　【原題】AA101

　　The following appeared in an editorial from a newspaper serving the town of Saluda:

　　“The Saluda Consolidated High School offers more than 200 different courses from which its students can choose. A much smaller private school down the street offers a basic curriculum of only 80 different courses, but it consistently sends a higher proportion of its graduating seniors on to college than Consolidated does. By eliminating at least half of the courses offered there and focusing on a basic curriculum, we could improve student performance at Consolidated and also save many tax dollars.”

　　Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

　　SC這個(gè)高中有超過200中不同的課程，而另一個(gè)更小的私立學(xué)校之提供80個(gè)不同課程，但是那個(gè)學(xué)校的大學(xué)入學(xué)率更高。所以SC覺得應(yīng)該減少至少一半的課程來提高入學(xué)率并減少賦稅

　　【參考思路】

　　1.Gratuitous Assumption——無根據(jù)假設(shè)： A 不導(dǎo)致B(course的數(shù)量和入學(xué)率沒有因果關(guān)系，入學(xué)率與考試分?jǐn)?shù)相關(guān)，而課程少不一定學(xué)生分?jǐn)?shù)就高)

　　2.單因果錯(cuò)誤Casual-relationship——有他因(如小型私立學(xué)校只招收精英學(xué)生，學(xué)生更努力，師資力量更好等原因同樣可以使入學(xué)率更高)

　　3.樣本不足Insufficient example(只是一個(gè)學(xué)校的例子不代表所有學(xué)校都適用，并不能說明只要course少入學(xué)率就高)

　　4. 錯(cuò)誤類比a false analogy(小型私立學(xué)校與SC高中存在差異，如SC高中位于城中心娛樂區(qū)，減少課程后學(xué)生的空余時(shí)間增加反而容易去花天酒地)

　　5. 時(shí)地全等all things are equal(過去經(jīng)驗(yàn)現(xiàn)在不一定適用，比如大學(xué)錄取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)出現(xiàn)了調(diào)整，知識面廣越來越重要，學(xué)過更多課程多反而容易進(jìn)入大學(xué))

　　6. 以小推大(.升學(xué)率不是衡量students’ performance的唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 the proportion of students who go on to college is an overall measure of student performance.)

　　PS：另兩個(gè)高階思路可參考

　　6.課程的減少不一定真的降低學(xué)校的運(yùn)行費(fèi)用，費(fèi)用取決于教師和學(xué)生數(shù)量以及占用教室的數(shù)量，減少課程不一定會降低稅負(fù)。

　　7.這家報(bào)紙可能存在既得利益，不中立。

　　【參考范文】

　　In this editorial the author recommends that Saluda’s Consolidated High School eliminate half of its 200 courses and focus primarily on basic curriculum in order to improve student performance and save tax revenues. The author’s recommendation is problematic for several reasons.

　　To begin with, the author assumes that the only relevant difference between Consolidated and the private school is the number of courses offered by each. However, other relevant differences between the schools might account for the difference in the proportion of their graduates who go on to college. For example, the private school’s students might be selected from a pool of gifted or exceptional students, or might have to meet rigorous admission standards whereas Consolidated’s students might be drawn from the community at large with little or no qualification for admission.

　　Next, the author assumes that the proportion of students who go on to college is an overall measure of student performance. While this is a tempting assumption, its truth is by no means obvious. If student excellence is narrowly dined in terms of the student’s ability to gain access to college, this assumption is somewhat reasonable. However, given a broader conception of student excellence that takes into account student’s ability to learn and apply their knowledge to new situations, its is not obvious that college admission is reliable indicator of performance. For example, students in non-academic disciplines could conceivably perform at high levels within these disciplines but nevertheless be unable to meet college admission standards.

　　Finally, the author assumes that savings in tax revenues will result from the reduced costs of funding the paired-down curriculum. This is not necessarily true. For example, it could turn out that both programs serve the same number of students and require the same number of classrooms and teacher.

　　In conclusion, the author has not made a convincing case for the recommendation to eliminate courses at Consolidated and focus on a basic curriculum. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to provide evidence that Consolidated and the private school were sufficiently similar to warrant the analogy between them. Moreover, the relationship between student performance and college admission and the mechanism whereby savings in tax revenues would be accomplished would have to be clarified.

　　以上就是高中減課程會不會增加升學(xué)率，降低稅費(fèi)的GMAT作文機(jī)經(jīng)的全部內(nèi)容，考生朋友可以有選擇的看看，最后需要提醒各位的是，機(jī)經(jīng)雖然會對我們解題有所幫助，但是在考場中即使題目很像也要避免秒選，最后祝大家都能考出好成績。