GMAT写作练习2

GMAT作文范文2Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocatesof free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic suchbehavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language andbehavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cordsof a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendencytoward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenryfrom potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposureof damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitutionto mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene andoffensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radioprograms are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effortis beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral characterand weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.2006-05-13Analysis of Issue #1In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship. AnswerThe censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict between the freedom ofexpression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individualbroadcasters.Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom ofspeech, but it is worthwhile if it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.。

70. The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of acompany that makes shampoo.“A widely publicized study claims that HR2, a chemical compound in our shampoo, can contribute to hair loss after prolonged use. This study, however, involved only 500 subjects. Furthermore, we have received no complaints from our customers during the past year, and some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative.”生产香波的公司的主席的备忘录：一份广泛出版的研究声称HR2，我们的香波里的一种化合物，长期使用后可能导致脱发。

但是，这项研究只包括500个样本。

此外，过去的一年里我们并未从我们的顾客那里接到投诉，而且一些我们的竞争者在一瓶香波里使用的HR2比我们的还要多。

因此，我们不必考虑用更贵的替代物替代我们的香波里的HR2。

The president of the company that produces Glabrous Shampoo argues against removing the ingredient HR2 from the shampoo even though a scientific study claims that prolonged use of HR2 can contribute to hair loss. Three reasons are cited as the basis for this decision. First, it is argued that since the scientific study involved only 500 subjects, it can be disregarded. Second, none of Glabrous’ customers have complained of problems during the past year. And, finally, Glabrous’ competitors use more HR2 per bottle than Glabrous. The president’s decision is problematic in several respects.To begin with, the fact that the scientific study on HR2 involved only 500 subjects is insufficient grounds to dismiss the results of that study. If the subjects for the study were randomlychosen and represent a diverse cross section of the population of shampoo users, the results will be reliable regardless of the number of participants.Next, the scientific study determined that prolonged use could contri bute to hair loss. While “prolonged use” was not defined in the memorandum, the fact that none of Glabrous’ customers have complained of problems during the past year is not a reliable reason to believe that problems will not arise in the future.Finally, the fact that Glabrous’ competitors use more HR2 in their products than Glabrous uses is irrelevant to the question of whether Glabrous should remove HR2 from its product. Moreover, rather than providing a reason for not removing the compound, this fact serves better as a reason for doing so. By removing HR2 from its product Glabrous could gain an edge over its competitors.。

客户服务不需要改进[注：此是为逻辑信息总结]1 1000人中有9个【原文语言信息】#2 好多人不反对【原文假设/推理信息】#3 如果。

【原文逻辑关系/基础知识的切入】*3 baggage handling ---customer serviceThe departmental memo advised that the A co need no further review of the customer service over its flights. One of the initiative evidence is that on avr. 9 out of 1000 ......The data presented by the company was quite intriguing：The readers might infer from this survey thatNevertheless, this data might somehow be flawed by some plaint facts.Since we do not have access to........., we could propose thatIf this had ever happened within the flights of A, the conclusion would call for further investigation on how....Another concern for the argument is the attitude performed by the co.The author simply assumed that promotion of service is not necessary because the number of people who complained was fewer than those who do not.This intention can be regarded as the ignorance of customers will.And if those who didn't file a trial to the co had noticed this ignorance, they might lose their faith in the quality of service by A, thus the further consumer number would also drop.Even the two factors mentioned above were true, the author would also have to think twice whether to improve its service or not.M The issue discussed within the argument was only about B H.I The author intended to suggest that as long as BH problem is solved, the customer service would never be questioned by cu.P This belief, however, is short-sighted.EThe assumption presented by the author suggested thatHowever, this belief is obviously unconvincing.If the customers happened to be celebrities who are famous in certain social department, the effect of the bad service could be enlarged by media or rumors, thus the company would once again have to reconsider the proposal.。

7. The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:“The computerized onboard warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder—a radio set that signals a plane’s course—in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action.”Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.8. The following appeared in a presentation by the chief production manager of a machine parts manufacturing company at a management meeting:“Our factory in Cookville is our most advanced and efficient. It is capable of producing ten drill bits for each dollar of production costs, whereas none of our other factories can produce more than seven drill bits per dollar of production costs. Therefore, we can reduce our overall drill bit production costs by devoting the Cookville factory entirely to drill bit production. Since reducing the production costs of individual machine parts is the only way to achieve our larger goal of reducing our overall production costs, dedicating the Cookville factory entirely to drill bit production and shifting all other machine part production to our other factories will help us to attain that larger goal.”Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.9.The following appeared in a memorandum to a team developing accounting software for SmartPro Software, Inc.: “Currently, more professional accountants use SmartPro accounting software than any other brand. However, in the market for personal accounting software for non-professionals to use in preparing their income tax returns, many of ourcompetitors are outselling us. In surveys, our professional customers repeatedly say that they have chosen SmartPro Software because our most sophisticated software products include more advanced special features than competing brands. Therefore, the most effective way for us to increase sales of our personal accounting software for home users would clearly be to add the advanced special features that our professional software products currently offer.”Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.10. The following appeared in a memorandum from the m arketing department of a children’s clothing manufacturer:“Our HuggyBunny brand is the bestselling brand of children’s clothing. Parents everywhere recognize the HuggyBunny logo as a mark of quality, and most of our customers show great brand loyalty. Sales reports have shown that parents are more likely to buy children’s clothes with the familiar HuggyBunny brand and logo than otherwise identical clothes without it. Therefore, if we use the HuggyBunny brand name and logo for the new line of clothing for teenagers that our company will soon be introducing, that clothing will sell better than it would if we labeled it with a new brand name and logo.”Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.11.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper:“Our city council’s neglect of the impoverished Railroad Flats neighborhood has left businesses with little incentive to locate there. Building a new professional football stadium in the neighborhood would solve this problem. Thousandsof football fans would travel to the area to see games, and they would buy from local merchants, encouraging newbusinesses to open. So our city council should move quickly to fund the construction of a professional football stadium in Railroad Flats in order to help the neighborhood develop a thriving economy.”Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.12.The following appeared in a research paper written for an introductory economics course:“For the past century, an increase in the number of residential building permits issued per month in a particular region has been a reliable indicator of coming improvements to that region’s economy. If the monthly number of residential building permits issued rises consistently for a few months, the local unemployment rate almost always falls and economic production increases. This well-established connection reveals an effective method by which a regional government can end a local economic downturn: relax regulations governing all construction so that many more building permits can be issue d.”Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.。

GMAT写作题库范文（二）写作是个厚积薄发的考试，同学们在备考GMAT写作时，不仅要多练习，也要去掌握一些重点语句。

有些题库范文是需要大家掌握并且熟练记忆的，熟记于心才能运用自如，才能举一反三。

接下来小编就给大家介绍一下GMAT写作范文，希望对大家备考GMAT写作考试有帮助。

2. The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company.“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices (n. 外地办事处) and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”Discuss how well reasoned... etc.下面摘自Apogee公司的商务部门的备忘录。

当Apogee将它所有的业务部门集中在一处时，它将有比现在更多的利润。

因此，Apogee应该关闭它的驻外办公室并从单一场所管理它的所有部门。

这样的话，集中会通过削减成本提高利润，并帮助公司更好地对所有员工进行监督。

In this argument the author concludes that the Apogee Company should close down field offices and conduct all its operations from a single, centralized location because the company had been more profitable in the past when all its operations were in one location. For a couple of reasons, this argument is not very convincing.First, the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible cost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies.Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more profitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization the only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line (帐本底线) such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense account monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy buying policies and other wasteful spending. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant todiminishing profits, this argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (decreasing profits) follows another (decentralization), the second event has been caused by the first.In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion that Apogee should close field offices and centralize, this author must provide a thorough cost-benefit analysis of available alternatives and rule out factors other than decentralization that might be affecting current profits negatively.以上就是关于GMAT写作范文的相关内容介绍，希望大家能够了解。

92. The following is taken from an editorial in a local newspaper.“Over the past decade, the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially. Eleven years ago, Megamart charged 5 cents apiece for lemons, but today it commonly charges over 30 cents apiece. In only one of these last eleven years was the weather unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Evidently, then, citrus growers have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus fruit, and strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent them from continuing to inflate prices.”当地报纸的社论：过去的10年里，桔类水果的价格实际上上升了。

11年前，Megamart每个柠檬要价5分，现在一般要价为30分一个。

过去11年只有一年不适合桔类水果生长。

显然，柑桔种植者应该对桔类水果价格过度上涨负责。

为防止他们继续哄抬价格规范价格规定很有必要。

1，小范围推大范围。

2，忽略他因，是否只有一种因素导致价格上升——不适合生长。

还有，比如环境保护，加工价格上升，人力成本上升，或者单纯的物价上涨。

monetary inflation, increased distribution and labor costs, or alterations in supply and demand conditions1，柠檬缺乏代表性，或者说，柠檬有其特殊性，譬如柠檬都是进口的，比较贵；2，天气好不一定代表物价要低，因为种植柑橘的农民已经动用了可用的资源了，产量无法再多了；3，是否物价高就是农民肆意抬高的缘故，可能是dealers在其中的作用；4，政府是否要介入，虽然价格变贵了，但是targeted customers没有变化，对整个国民经济影响不大In this editorial the author argues for the imposition of strictpricing regulations in order to prevent citrus growers from continued inflation of prices of citrus fruit. The need for such regulation is supported by the author’s contention that citrus growers have been unnecessarily raising prices of citrus fruit in the past. The evidence for this allegation is the fact that the price of lemons at Megamart has increased from 15 cents per pound to over a dollar a pound during the preceding 11-year period. The author maintains that this increase is unjustifiable because weather conditions have been favorable to citrus production in all but one of those years. This argument is flawed for several reasons.First and foremost, the author assumes that the only factor that influences the price of citrus fruit is the weather. Other factors such as monetary inflation, increased distribution and labor costs, or alterations in supply and demand conditions are completely ignored as possible sources for the increase. The charge that citrus growers have unnecessarily raised prices can be sustained only if these and other possible factors can be completely ruled out as contributing to the price increases. Since the author fails to address these factors, the recommendation calling for strict pricing regulations can be dismissed out of hand (adv. 无法控制, 脱手, 告终, 立即) as frivolous.Second, the author assumes that the only way to combat increased prices is through government intervention. In a free enterprise system many other means of affecting the pricing of goods are available. For example, boycotting a product and thereby influencing supply and demand conditions of the commodity is an effective means of influencing the price of the product. In a free market economy the call for price regulation by the government should occur only when all other means torectify the problem have been exhausted.In conclusion, the auth or’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument it would be necessary to show that the only factor influencing the price increases is the growers’ desire for increased profits.。

108. The following appeared as part of a business plan created by the management of the Take Heart Fitness Center.“After opening the new swimming pool early last summer, Take Heart saw a 12 percent increase in the use of the center by members. Therefore, in order to increase the number of our members and thus our revenues, which depend on membership fees, we should continue to add new recreational facilities in subsequent years: for example, a multipurpose game room, a tennis court, and a miniature golf course. Being the only center in the area offering this range of activities would give us a competitive advantage in the health and recreation market.”Take Heart健身中心的管理者起草的商业计划：去年夏天开了新的游泳池以后，TH发现会员对中心的使用率增加了12％。

因此，为了增加我们的会员数量和决定于会员费的收入，我们应该在以后几年中继续增加新的娱乐设施：比如，一个多功能游戏室，一个球场，一个迷你高尔夫球场。

作为本地一家提供各种活动的健身中心，我们将在健身和娱乐市场建立竞争优势。

GMAT作文经典范文GMAT范文The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter. While trucking panies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad panies property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens. Discuss how well reasoned... etc.The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes for railroad panies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by rail is cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.First of all, the argument depends upon a misleading parison between railroad and truck pany expenditures. Although trucking panies do not pay property tax on roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, warehouses and maintenance facilities they own. And while trucking panies pay only a portion of road maintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad panies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities and tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.。

OBSTACLES1 WHAT DOES THE VOCAB MEAN?2 WHERE IS THE CONCLUSION?3 WHAT IS THE MAN TALKING ABOUT?这不是Argument 此题无解。

V1 O1, V2 O2, and V3 O3How can。

你只在乎老大，可是你有没有考虑过我的感受。

1 You are a nut to focus on him.2 should由于土地所有者和农民的抗议和要求立法者花费了大量宝贵的时间在（防止农村犯罪）上但他们怎么能在这种的破坏上浪费时间而忽略城市犯罪的流毒农村的破事儿太trivial了，不应该引起立法者的注意1 leg 关注谁2 LEG （crime ）police3 the contrast前提立法关注农村犯罪（立法者关注农村而不关注城市）是浪费时间假设农村事务<<城市犯罪论据结论立法者应该关注城市而不该关注农村“关于立法者应该关注的事务的判断是错误的”In the letter to the editor of a newspaper, the author criticized the ignorance from legislature upon issues associated with urban crime and required them to focus more on urban crisis. To support his assertion, the man complained that members of legal department wasted their time on rural crimes, which is, according to his description, too trivial to catch legal attention，and severe situation in cities. These complains and suggestions are obviously fallible.Mention：关注农村事务I：城市事物被忽略P：非此即彼（只能关注城市或者农村不可得兼不可关注别的）E：如果立法者同时关注两者，而作者根本不知道，就无法证明自己观点【作者本可以证明“立法者确实没有关注城市”但是他没有给出进一步的论据和假设来证明这个说法因此他的建议就不宜被考虑了】M The conclusion/suggestion originated from the fact that IN RESPONSE TO ....I In mentioning this, the author simply inferred that if the L concern themselves with the crisis in rural area, they definitely had no time to focus on crimes and violence within the nation's city.P Actually this could be a false dilemma.E The only evidence to support his assumption is that L focused on the crime in rural area. However, he never raised any further evidence to prove that L did not concern themselves with urban ones. If those members of legislative department had equally treated urban and rural affairs, the worry of this author that L did not care for urban violence would be false. Therefore the L might not need to overreact to the crisis within cities.M：立法者不关注城市I：立法者一定对城市犯罪有管辖权；【城市犯罪是由立法不健全造成的——立法者应该负责】P：错误假设/概念偷换E：1 立法可能已经很健全2 城市犯罪猖獗由于【其他部门Justice Dept】M: 认为农村事务是小事I：理所当然的事情不需要证明P：错误假设E：损失大小数据农村1000万/年城市500万/年城市>>>农村1 >>>>>>>2 3。