GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文四七

会计考友

23. This speaker draws the conclusion that there is no need to substantially increase
funding for Einstein High School. To support this conclusion, the speaker claims that
3 e, K4 t0 H1 l6 ~Einstein has improved its educational efficiency over the past 20 years, even though
9 ~9 r/ g3 u+ F7 U) W! g/ Ufunding level s have remained relatively constant. His evidence is that two-thirds of
Einstein's graduates now go on to college, whereas 20 years ago only half of its students
5 A1 J8 e+ U( q: ^0 gdid so. This argument suffers from several critical problems.
      To begin with, we must establish the meaning of the vague concept "educational
1 T& k% `3 T) P2 o  Oefficiency." If the term is synonymous with the rate of graduation to college, then the
1 s* y4 l; r- e8 ?' v* [statistics cited would strongly support the argument. But, normally we are interested in
8 M7 a$ D5 o3 m* W1 }- I9 i3 Isomething more than just the numbers of students who go on to college from a high
3 J8 o' R  n: `2 p' b$ z4 Rschool; we also want to know how well the school has prepared students for a
7 ^; y8 H3 Z3 |9 E: u+ w$ usuccessful college experience—that is, whether the school has provided a good  
1 b, Y" f6 b, ~" h1 Fsecondary education. Thus, for the speaker the term "educational efficiency" must
! l( t2 \7 N$ v' uessentially carry the same meaning as "educational quality."
- h; S* P8 j6 q+ E      Given this clarification, one of the speaker's assumptions is that the rate of
2 Y. _9 L7 l9 U9 V5 M% L2 P2 Igraduation to college has increased because Einstein is doing a better job of educating
its students. However, the fact that more Einstein graduates now go on to college might
simply reflect a general trend. And the general trend might have less to do with
improved secondary education than with the reality that a college degree is now the
6 e3 x! A6 C) X0 T1 D# m1 Wstandard of entry into most desirable jobs.
) u1 ~  p& v% C      But even if the quality of education at Einstein had improved, would this be a
compelling reason to deny Einstein additional funding? I don't think so. It is possible
that the school has managed to deliver better education in spite of meager funding.
0 b6 O3 B+ @  G9 @- PTeachers may be dipping into their own pockets for supplies and other resources
necessary for doing their job well. Perhaps the quality of education at Einstein would
* D' q* L: [' F. wimprove even more with additional financial support.
      In sum, this argument does not establish the conclusion that additional funding for
' |4 W* f* d3 W1 HEinstein is unnecessary. To do so, the speaker would have to provide evidence that the
quality of education at Einstein has improved. This could be done by examining student
' E+ r7 c* [& y" n/ J/ Zassessment scores or by tracking students through their college careers to see how many
successfully graduate and find jobs. In addition, the speaker would also have to show
that Einstein is doing a good job with adequate financial support, and not merely in
4 Q  n8 V$ S1 P/ ^2 \: V) Wspite of insufficient funding.