2025年GRE《寫作》專項訓練考試時間：______分鐘總分：______分姓名：______寫作部分IssueDirections:Thefollowingpromptisbasedontheaccompanyingpassage.Readthepassageandthepromptcarefully.Then,inabriefessayofabout400words,developandsupportyourpointofviewontheissuepresented.Indevelopingandsupportingyourpointofview,youmaydrawuponyourreading,yourownexperience,oryourobservationsoftheworldaroundyou.Thepassage:Inmanyfields,itisbecomingincreasinglyimportantforprofessionalstohaveabroadbaseofknowledgeandskill,ratherthandeepexpertiseinasinglearea.Therapidpaceoftechnologicaladvancementandtheinterconnectednessofglobaleconomiesmeanthatjobsarechangingfasterthaneverbefore.Toremaincompetitive,professionalsmustbeadaptableandversatile,capableoflearningnewskillsandapplyingknowledgefromdiversedisciplinestosolvecomplexproblems.Deepspecialization,whilevaluableincertaincontexts,mayleadtoobscurityandmakeitdifficultforindividualstoadapttonewchallengesoropportunities.Prompt:Doestheincreasingemphasisonbroadknowledgeandversatilityoverdeepspecializationrepresentapositiveornegativedevelopmentforindividualsandsociety?ArgumentDirections:Thefollowingscenariopresentsastatement,whichyouaretoanalyze.Indoingso,focusonthelineofreasoningpresentedandidentifyanyerrorsinreasoning.Inabriefessayofabout400words,evaluatetheargumentandrecommendwhat,ifanything,shouldbedone.Supportyourevaluationwithclearreasoningandevidence.Scenario:ThecitycouncilofLakesideisconsideringaproposaltobanthesaleofsingle-useplasticbagsinallretailstoreswithinthecitylimits.Proponentsofthebanarguethatitisnecessarytoaddressthegrowingproblemofplasticpollutioninlocalwaterwaysandonbeaches.Arecentstudycommissionedbythecityfoundthatplasticwasteaccountsforapproximately30%ofthedebriscollectedalongLakeside'sbeachesannually.Furthermore,thestudynotedthatplasticbagsoftenendupinlocalwaterways,wheretheycanharmwildlife.Theproponentsalsopointoutthatseveralneighboringcitieshavealreadyimplementedsimilarbanswithreportedsuccessinreducingplasticwaste.Therefore,thecitycouncilshouldenactabanonsingle-useplasticbagstoprotecttheenvironmentandpublichealth.EssayforIssue(請在這里寫你的Issue作文)EssayforArgument(請在這里寫你的Argument作文)試卷答案Issue解析思路：此題要求考生就“日益強調(diào)廣博知識和技能的重要性相對于單一領域深度專業(yè)知識的重要性是利大于弊還是弊大于利”展開論述?？忌杳鞔_自己的立場（正面或負面），并構建有說服力的論證。*正面觀點解析思路：*論證點1：適應性強-強調(diào)在快速變化的時代，廣博的知識和技能使個人能更快適應新環(huán)境、新工作要求。*論證點2：解決復雜問題-論證跨學科知識有助于應對全球化、技術融合帶來的復雜挑戰(zhàn)。*論證點3：創(chuàng)新潛力-多領域知識的交叉融合可能激發(fā)創(chuàng)新思維，產(chǎn)生新的想法或解決方案。*論證點4：職業(yè)發(fā)展靈活-擁有廣泛技能的個體在職業(yè)轉型或面對行業(yè)變動時更具優(yōu)勢。*需考慮的潛在反駁/復雜性：深度專業(yè)知識在某些領域（如基礎科學研究、精密工程）仍是必需的；廣博可能意味著淺嘗輒止。*負面觀點解析思路：*論證點1：缺乏深度導致基礎薄弱-批評過于強調(diào)廣博而忽視深度可能導致專業(yè)知識不扎實，難以解決核心問題。*論證點2：難以精通-擁抱過多知識領域可能導致精力分散，最終在哪個領域都無法成為專家。*論證點3：專業(yè)價值降低-在特定行業(yè)或領域內(nèi)，深度專業(yè)知識是獲得高階職位和認可的關鍵。*論證點4：可能導致“萬金油”但無核心競爭力-在就業(yè)市場上，過于寬泛的背景可能不如在特定領域有深厚造詣的候選人有競爭力。*需考慮的潛在反駁/復雜性：“T型”人才（既有廣度又有深度）是理想模式；某些職業(yè)確實需要廣度?？忌鷳x擇一個明確立場，并選擇2-3個最有力的論證點進行深入闡述，可結合實例（個人經(jīng)歷、社會現(xiàn)象、歷史事件等）支持觀點，并適當提及對立觀點以顯示思辨能力。Argument解析思路：此題要求考生分析Lakeside市關于禁止銷售一次性塑料袋的論證，找出其中的邏輯錯誤，并提出改進建議。關鍵在于識別論據(jù)與結論之間的薄弱環(huán)節(jié)。*識別潛在邏輯謬誤/分析思路：*首要謬誤：統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)的局限性（樣本偏差/范圍謬誤）-論據(jù)中“最近一份由市政府委托的研究”發(fā)現(xiàn)塑料垃圾占海灘廢棄物的30%。問題在于：1)這份研究是否具有代表性？是全市所有海灘還是特定幾個？2)這個比例是否準確反映了所有進入水道的塑料量（包括河流、湖泊等）？3)該數(shù)據(jù)是否為最新數(shù)據(jù)？塑料污染狀況可能已變化。僅憑海灘數(shù)據(jù)推斷全市水道問題可能過于片面。*其次謬誤：類比論證的不可靠性（類比謬誤）-論證提到“幾個鄰近城市已經(jīng)實施了類似禁令并取得了成功”。問題在于：1)“成功”的定義是什么？是顯著減少了塑料污染，還是僅僅減少了銷售額？2)鄰近城市的具體情況（人口密度、經(jīng)濟結構、環(huán)保意識、替代品可用性等）可能與Lakeside市是否相似？如果差異巨大，其經(jīng)驗教訓的適用性存疑。*可能存在的其他謬誤：*滑坡謬誤：禁止塑料袋是否能直接、必然地解決“環(huán)境”和“公共健康”問題？可能只解決了部分塑料污染問題，而未解決其他環(huán)境或健康問題。*訴諸流行/權威（潛在）：“鄰近城市實施”可能帶有一定權威性，但成功不等于該做法對所有城市都絕對適用。*忽略成本/替代方案：論證未提及實施禁令可能帶來的負面影響（如對低收入群體的影響、小商販的困難）或探討是否有其他更有效/成本更低的方法來減少塑料污染（如加強回收、推廣可重復使用袋、源頭控制等）。*建議：*基于上述識別出的主要邏輯缺陷（特別是研究數(shù)據(jù)的局限性和類比論證的不可靠性），建議不應僅憑這些理由就貿(mào)然做出全面禁止的決定。*建議進行更全面深入的調(diào)查分析，例如：收集更廣泛的塑料污染數(shù)據(jù)（涵蓋不同水域），評估鄰市禁令成功的具體條件和衡量標準，分析禁令對市民、商家可能產(chǎn)生的影響，并比較禁令與其他環(huán)保措施的優(yōu)缺點。*建議市政府在做出最終決定前，組織多方（市民、商家、環(huán)保組織、專家學者）進行充分討論，或先進行小范圍試點，以收集更全面的信息和意見。考生需在作文中清晰指出所識別的謬誤，詳細解釋為什么這些謬誤削弱了論證的有效性，并基于此提出具體的、有針對性的改進建議。Argument(以下為模擬的Argument作文范文，僅供參考，非標準答案)Theargumentpresentedforbanningsingle-useplasticbagsinLakesidereliesontwomainpoints:alocalstudyindicatingthatplasticwasteconstitutesasignificantportionofbeachdebrisandthesuccessofsimilarbansinneighboringcities.Whilethesepointssuggestaconcernforenvironmentalprotection,theargumentsuffersfromseveralcriticallogicalflawsthatweakenitsconclusion.Firstly,theargument'srelianceonthecity'scommissionedstudyisproblematicduetopotentiallimitationsinthedatacollected.ThestudyfocusessolelyonLakeside'sbeaches,butplasticpollutionextendsfarbeyondcoastalareas,affectingrivers,lakes,andoceanswithinthecitylimitsaswell.Itisentirelypossiblethatthe30%figureaccuratelyreflectsonlytheplasticfoundonthebeachesandsignificantlyunderrepresentsthetotalvolumeofplasticwasteenteringthecity'swaterways.Withoutcomprehensivedataonplasticdebrisinallaquaticenvironments,basingacity-widebanonbeachcleanupstatisticsisasignificantoversightandlikelyinaccuraterepresentationoftheoverallproblem.Theconclusionthatabanisnecessaryto"protecttheenvironment"isthereforequestionablewithoutthisbroadercontext.Secondly,theargument'sappealtothesuccessofbansinneighboringcitiesisbasedonanunreliableanalogy.Whilethepremisementionssuccess,itdoesnotdefinewhatconstitutes"success."Wasitameasurablereductioninplasticpollution,orsimplyareductioninplasticbagsales?Furthermore,theenvironmentalandsocio-economiccontextsofLakesideanditsneighboringcitiesmaydiffersubstantially.Differencesinpopulationdensity,localeconomies,publicawareness,theavailabilityandcostofalternativebagoptions,andexistingwastemanagementinfrastructurecouldallinfluencetheeffectivenessofaban.SimplyobservingsuccessinanothercitydoesnotguaranteethatthesameoutcomewillbeachievedinLakeside,especiallyiftheunderlyingconditionsarenotcomparable.Theargumentfailstoaddressthesecrucialcontextualfactors,makingtheclaimthatLakesideshouldfollowsuitbasedonneighboringexampleshighlyspeculativeandpotentiallymisleading.Inconclusion,theargument'sconclusionthatLakesideshouldenactabanonsingle-useplast