這篇是因為在計中練習的時候 有一個不是要考GMAT就是考GRE的女生坐在我旁邊練作文我忽然壓力感倍增..=.= 所以很多句子都是題目的重複 這篇好爛啊>"<
204. The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication. "With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets, and with new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar will no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increase their production peanuts last year, and their total revenues from that crop were quite high."
The author asserted that farmers in outr states should cultivate peanuts instead of sugars by using several evidence to support his/her view -- reports about harmful effects of eating too much sugar resulting to declination of demand of sugar, low protein contained in sugar and increasing production of peanuts in neighboring country. However, there are some fallacies in this argument after I analyze it and I will state each of them in the following statement.
In the first place, the author failed to establish the relationship between harmful effects of eating too much sugar and declination of demand of sugar. Although eating too much sugar will do damage to our body, sugar is an indispensible elements in our life. As long as people do not put too much sugar in their food, sugar may be beneficial, not harmful, to them. Hence, the continuing publicity is ambiguous and it is not reasonable to determine the declination of demand of sugar according to it.
Moreover, peanuts full of protein does not mean that it will not cause any negative effects to our body. Maybe peanuts will also result in several serious desease as a result of having too much protein in them. Therefore, the author must gather sufficent information to prove that too much protein has no effects to our body.
Last but not the least, there is an analogy fallacy which compares two different country under unspecified bases. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin increase the production of peanuts does not mean those in our states will also receive high revenue. In addition, our stated may not be proper to grow peanuts according to weather, composition of land, and so forth. In one word, the statement does not specified the background and situation of two countries and mistakenly combine them together.
In sum, to strengthen the reliability of this argument, the author should find more evidence to complement the fallacies, such as the effects of eating appropriate sugar, of eating too much peanuts with too much protein, and the relationship between two counties.
204. The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication. "With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets, and with new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar will no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increase their production peanuts last year, and their total revenues from that crop were quite high."
The author asserted that farmers in outr states should cultivate peanuts instead of sugars by using several evidence to support his/her view -- reports about harmful effects of eating too much sugar resulting to declination of demand of sugar, low protein contained in sugar and increasing production of peanuts in neighboring country. However, there are some fallacies in this argument after I analyze it and I will state each of them in the following statement.
In the first place, the author failed to establish the relationship between harmful effects of eating too much sugar and declination of demand of sugar. Although eating too much sugar will do damage to our body, sugar is an indispensible elements in our life. As long as people do not put too much sugar in their food, sugar may be beneficial, not harmful, to them. Hence, the continuing publicity is ambiguous and it is not reasonable to determine the declination of demand of sugar according to it.
Moreover, peanuts full of protein does not mean that it will not cause any negative effects to our body. Maybe peanuts will also result in several serious desease as a result of having too much protein in them. Therefore, the author must gather sufficent information to prove that too much protein has no effects to our body.
Last but not the least, there is an analogy fallacy which compares two different country under unspecified bases. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin increase the production of peanuts does not mean those in our states will also receive high revenue. In addition, our stated may not be proper to grow peanuts according to weather, composition of land, and so forth. In one word, the statement does not specified the background and situation of two countries and mistakenly combine them together.
In sum, to strengthen the reliability of this argument, the author should find more evidence to complement the fallacies, such as the effects of eating appropriate sugar, of eating too much peanuts with too much protein, and the relationship between two counties.
全站熱搜
留言列表
Old Stuff (1)
