这是一道题：In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, andfishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowingthrough the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city parkdepartment devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreationalfacilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about thequality of the river’s water and the river’s smell. In response, the state hasrecently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for watersports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for thatreason devote more money in this year’s budget to riverside recreationalfacilities.Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstatedassumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument dependson the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions proveunwarranted. （要求指出argument中做了什么假设，假设的依据，以及如果假设不成立对argument的影响。）这是官方公布的一篇满分范文：While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money toriverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated toriver sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author’s argument.Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating,and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surroundingrock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.以下是阅卷人评语，括号部分是我的分析：这篇见解深刻的作文鉴别了argument中的重要的假设并深度检验了这些假设所带来的影响。Argument中的关于增加河岸边娱乐设施预算的提议是基于一些有问题的假设的，即：Argument中提到的调查为增加预算的提议提供了可靠的依据；河流的污染和气味是很少有人来玩的唯一原因；清理河流的措施会成功。（本段第一句话实际上就是在讨论该作文对于写作指令的回应。所以课上老师讲的写作指令多么重要啊，大家写作文一定要回应写作指令！） 在表明了每一个假设都有问题的情况下，这篇作文证明了这篇argument在逻辑上的欠缺。例如，第二段指出调查的样本可能代表性不足，选项太少，或者只有极少数的问题是关于水上运动的。第三段检验了关于水质的抱怨和河流的娱乐性使用量很少的联系。作文指出抱怨可能只来自少数几个人，很少人来玩水上运动可能有其他更重要的原因。最后，第四段解释了地理特性可能会阻碍河流清理取得成功。诸如此类的细节为这篇作文提供了强有力的支撑。（这就是在告诉我们，不要只说有什么问题，一定要有具体的可能的例子能举出来。一切脱离开细节的大道理都是空话，毫无说服力！）另外，非常考究的语言组织了每一个点都是基于上一个点的, 例如，第三段开头的“additionally, ...”和第四段开头的“building upon ... the author suggests that ...”这些清晰的逻辑连接词或短语，以及段内的句间的逻辑顺序，尤其是第四段的“if ..., this may be true.” “ But if ..., this may not be true.” “ Consequently, ...” “ Regardless of ..., the author does not ...”（所以啊，大家尽量不要写很多独立的短句，中间毫无连接词或者连接短语。尽量把段落之间、句子之间的让步转折、因果、并列、对比……等等关系呈现出来！） 虽然这篇作文确实存在一些小错误，但是它非常流畅的表达了所有观点。注意它恰到好处的用词，例如“rife with . . . assumptions” “may have swayed residents”. 另外，不仅它句式多变，也同时能够非常巧妙地运用其他句法。例如，第一段里整体呈现出来的平行结构，即两个让步转折句式形成的平行结构。（从这个评语的用词中我们可以看出其实ETS对GRE写作语言的要求并不是很高，所以只要托福写作22+，雅思写作5.5+的筒子们就不要过于担心，你应该把重心放在上面讨论的几个方面。） 鉴于本文对argument做了一个强有力的检验并能精巧地传达观点，它可以得到6分。
