欢迎来到上海新航道学校官网!英语高能高分,就上新航道

上海学校

  • 课程
  • 资讯

4008-125-888

【GRE写作】Argument精选真题范文(十三)

2020/9/14 16:21:14来源:新航道作者:新航道

摘要:今天新航道上海学校小编继续分享关于GRE写作Argument部分精选真题范文权威解析(十三),希望对各位备考的考生们有所帮助。

  今天新航道上海学校小编继续分享关于GRE写作Argument部分精选真题范文权威解析(十三),希望对各位备考的考生们有所帮助。


  「Question No. 84」

  The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.

  “Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are known to eat amphibian eggs.)”

  Instructions:

  Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.


  Introduction

 略


  Body

  Alternative explanation 1:

  Trout may not have been the reason why there are reduced numbers of each species and fewer species. An alternative explanation is as follows: some of the “missing” species may have failed to adapt to the climate change, which is possible during the roughly thirty years’ time, and died, or the park’ environment had changed during the years, and some of the species may have migrated to the outside of the park for places that are more habitable. In this case, those amphibians may have died or have moved out of the park before trout had a chance to eat their eggs.

  Alternative explanation 2:

  Second, it is not unlikely that the park had a reduced area in 2002, when researcher counted the species and the numbers of species. In this case, the missing species may have remained where had always been but would not have been counted as park’s species. As a matter of fact, if the shrinkage of area took place in 1975, trout would not even have had a chance to eat the eggs of some of the amphibians’ eggs.

  Alternative explanation 3:

  Third, humans may be another factor, since there may have been poachers, who hunt amphibians. If humans’ poaching had taken those “missing” species before the trout had a chance to eat amphibians’ eggs, trout should be ruled out as a factor.

  Alternative explanation 4:

  提示:Based on the information that “only four species of amphibians were observed in the park”, we know that observation is the way of counting the numbers. It is therefore likely that the observation may be inaccurate. Blah blah blah

  其它可能的逻辑点:略

  Conclusion

  略

请加sunny老师(微信号:shnc_2018

百人留学备考群,名师答疑,助教监督,分享最新资讯,领取独家资料。扫码免费加入

免费获取资料

热报课程

  • GRE课程
班级名称 班号 开课时间 人数 学费 报名

免责声明
1、如转载本网原创文章,情表明出处
2、本网转载媒体稿件旨在传播更多有益信息,并不代表同意该观点,本网不承担稿件侵权行为的连带责任;
3、在本网博客/论坛发表言论者,文责自负。

制作:每每

旗舰校区:上海徐汇区文定路209号宝地文定商务中心1楼 乘车路线:地铁1/4号线上海体育馆、3/9号线宜山路站、11号线上海游泳馆站

电话:4008-125-888

版权所有:上海胡雅思投资管理有限公司 沪ICP备11042568号-1