AWA5.0感想，GMAT考试作文经验分享

fifthstreet

刚刚查了电子成绩，AWA5.0，有点shock，意外。现在总结一下我的复习经历供参考AWA难度，希望对和我背景相似的xdjm们有帮助～
背景：
GRE AW 3.0（这是个彻底的悲剧><）
T 作文单项 24 （综合写作悲剧><)
复习：考前一天
a.找了某6.0大N的A魔版+6G自己准备的魔版，拿来反复记忆；
b.晚上看了狗狗I&A各约15道左右（此时感觉A都能找到3个错，I都能扯3个点，再一看还有N多狗狗等着我，于是自我安慰说OK了，就这样上场吧……）；
c.仔细研读了黄金80篇的几篇范文，感觉比GRE的I简单，字数更少，逻辑更简单，深度也低些，于是我放宽了心态，暗道，KAO，总不会比6G的3.0更鹾了吧……；
d.没有练过一篇，因为只有十来天复习，AWA被我无情地舍弃了::><::；
考试ing:
a.进去得比较早，旁边的某姐键盘敲得巨fast, 心一颤手就有点抖了，总是少打或多打字母，很是郁闷。。。
b.我深深的记得A打完第一段已经过去10min了……当时死的心都有了，为毛我考前没有在电脑上敲下魔版啊
c.自我感觉，A&I的字数两篇我差不多，估计400出头，所以最后成绩5.0挺shock的（考前问前辈都跟我说500……当时我就黯然了，考T 的时候，我独立写作觉得打得神速也只有450/30min, 这个要500/30min??!! 哈搞笑滴吧::><:
呵呵，以上是我的AWA总结，似乎鸡马特的AWA比较简单？至少在我的6G的AW vs. AWA上来看是这样。
以此总结希望对没有啥时间复习AWA，背景和我相似的xdjm有帮助呵～～祝考试大吉！！

放上我用的某大N的魔版~觉得是我见过的最后滴
请见http://forum.topway.org/viewthread.php?tid=219843&extra=

fifthstreet

Argument
时序性因果攻击Firstly, the author is engaged in ‘after this, therefore, because of this’ reasoning. The line of reasoning is that because A happened before B, the former caused the latter. However, this reasoning is fallacious unless other possible causal factors have been considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps C. As a result, any decision aimed at addressing the problem of B must be based on a more thorough investigation to gather data in order to narrow down and locate the actual cause of B.

fifthstreet

同时性因果攻击Secondly, the author’s solution rests on the assumption that A is the cause of B just because A coincided with B. However, a mere positional correlation does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. In addition, all other prospective causes of B, such as C and D, must be ruled out. Without detailed analysis of the real source of B, it would be groundless to attribute B to A.

fifthstreet

错误类比攻击Additionally, it is highly doubtful that strategies drawn from A are applicable to B. However, differences between these two clearly outweigh the similarities, therefore making the analogy much less valid. For example, C and D all affect A but virtually absent in B. Accordingly, we can see that A and B are so dissimilar that B is unlikely to experience the same consequence if it adopts A’s strategies.

fifthstreet

非此即彼攻击Last but not least, the author unfairly assumes that a reader must make a either-or choice. However, the argument fails to rule out possibility that adjusting A and B might produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that A and B are the only causes of the problem, thus the most effective solution might include a complex of other factors—such as C and D. In any event, the author provides no justification for the mutually exclusive choice imposed on the reader.

fifthstreet

必要性攻击In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that B was determined solely by A. While A is a seemingly important element in determining B, it is hardly the only or even necessarily required element. This assumption overlooks other crucial criteria in determining B—such as C, D. Without accounting for these potential factors, the author concludes too hastily that …is the best way to achieve goals.

fifthstreet

充分性攻击In the second place, the author’s solution rests on the assumption that A is sufficient to give birth to the desired goals. However, if it turns out that B is due to a combination of factors, some of which will remain unchanged in the future, such as C and D, only A might have no impact on B.

fifthstreet

选择性样本攻击 A threshold problem is that the author provides no evidence to claim that the general group as a whole is of the same characteristic. The example cited, while suggestive of this trend, is insufficient to warrant that the sample is representative of the whole group. For example, I question that…Therefore, such evidence would be obviously unrepresentative. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious for the author to draw any conclusion at all.

fifthstreet

(与“选择性样本攻击”较类似) 样本代表性攻击Moreover, a possible methodology problem in the argument is that it is of bias. The term ‘so many’ is too vague to be statistically meaningful. It is very possible that workers who were more interested in the survey might be likely to respond to the questionnaire. Lacking in the information about the number of workers surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to assess the validity of the survey. For instance, if 1000 workers were surveyed but only 10 responded, the result should be highly suspect. Because the author fails to account for other interpretations, the survey would be useless in concluding that….

fifthstreet

其他理由
忽略他因攻击Thirdly, the author has focused only on A. A more detailed analysis would reveal that other factors far outweigh the factor on which the author focuses. For example, C. Lacking a more comprehensive analysis of the causes, it is presumptuous for the author to claim that A solely determined B.