gmat 写作 练习题解析和部分范文 Q2

一个调查：在过去五年中，看电视的人增加了15%，同期去博物馆的人增加了相似百分比__看电视人数多少是导致去博物馆人数多少的直接原因（or 两者是存在必然的因果关系的）。

现在，支持电视的企业资金在减少__所以看电视的人数就减少啦___（又因为电视人数多少会导致博物馆参观者人数变化）_____所以博物馆人数会下降。

（电视需要￥而博物馆不需要￥/ 电视的发展最重要）因此，一部分财政资金应该分配给电视。

1 C
2 Our task
1 TV M 有没有因果关系——没有
2 ￥给少了—不会—TV人数下降——M人数下降
3 TV重要性————if不重要
4 文化——TV M
Critique评论“别人说了什么——他这么说有什么意思——我怎么看——我为什么这么看”
“——他这么说有什么问题——这个问题会给他的论证带来什么影响
开头段
Bg（原文的前提/结论/假设/论据）
Critique“原文作者的结论有问题”
主体段落x3
提出一个条件，使得原文结论不成立
“If X is true，then ＣＯＮＣＬＵＳＩＯＮis false.”
1 Critique
2 Advice
【老套路：结论是谁？公共资金拨款——为啥公共资金拨款？——因为私人资金减少了——私人资金减少了为啥公共资金就得补上——因为导致了人数下降{人数下降和钱的关系和产业发展的关系各位自行脑补}】
强加因果——错误假设
M 15%
I “同时发生性质相同=因果关系”Since the two situation took place at the same period and increased by a similar amount, therefore the TV industry might be the major cause of M visitor variability.
P Actually this cause-effect relationship is unconvincing.
E 【论据】15% 基数削弱TV 800 M 8000 7200不是因为TV 而去M——电视的基础作用就消失了，所以PF不需要给TV
【假设】TV人数变化的因素为A；M人数变化因素为B.
M ￥减少——M人数下降。

I ￥减少———TV人数会减少——【MIPE1】M人数会减少
P 无因果/这样说是不对的
E ￥减少—X——TV人数会减少
3 M 增加TV财政资金
I 作者在假设TV拨款增加不会影响其他文化部门
E TV钱增加【M MOVIE ART 拨款会减少，维护费用减少设施就烂了人数还会下降影响文化产业的长远发展】————————方案目光。

In the memorandum, the city council expressed concerns over the shrink on TV art program viewers and therefore declining culture industries and suggested that city funds should be reallocated to TV programs. The advice was supported by two factors: 1. TV was the source of variability to other sectors such as museum, and 2. Corporate funding for TV program is decreasing. Though the article sounds persuasive, a few question need to be affirmed before the plan was taken out.
The first question is the correlative variability between TV audiences and M visitors.
The author simply gave out a poll showing that during the past five years, the number of people who watch public art programs on TV increased by 15%, and at the same time, the number of museum visitors boosted by a similar percentage.
According to the inadequate information presented by the argument, we could only assume that the author has taken the increasing rate in TV audiences for granted as the cause of M visitors.
This cause-effect relationship is obviously disqualified.
Since we do not have access to the real number of additional audiences or tourists, we can presume that if the number of increasing visitors to M was much bigger than that of TV viewers, say 8000 to 800, there would be numerous new visitors not having watched TV programs before, therefore the core effect of TV programs can be damaged, and the fund raising plan would be further useless.
M 15% 对15%
I 作者暗示“TV 和M 有因果关系”
P 数据不充分/ 强加因果
E TV 和M 没有因果关系【800VS8000】【影响看电视人数变化的因素是X 而影响去博物馆的人数因素Y】$不需要给TV
The second concern would be whether a decreasing Corporate funding would reduce the number of TV audiences and therefore M visitors. Even we admit that public TV is the very significant sector of local cultural industry, we can still dig out a serious problem: if the number of TV viewers did not fall due to the shrinking corporate support, it would cause no negative effect over any other parts of the industry such as museums, therefore once again the city funds would be unnecessary to be devoted to TV. It is possible that the cut funding is essentially redundant for TV and the companies would like to put them into better use since these funds was originally beyond the demand for TV art shows.
The final and most important question would be the potential consequence of this reallocation plan.
The author fail to clarify whether the portion of fund over other cultural sectors would be abased in accordance with the redistribution campaign on TV.
P 作者忽略了新的拨款会造成的远期影响
Therefore we can consider the council took for granted that those sectors are definitely OK with
the possible cut down on their own outlays.
I 作者认为削减其他部门不会有影响
However, if those sectors suffer from this possible shrink on public fundings and bring overall damage on local cultural industry, even the outstanding TV audience increase would not do any help to the situation. If the council members simply draw this conclusion without any backup plans on the issue, the blueprint would be sh ort-sighted.
The author has concluded that.....
The author has suggested that....
In conclusion, the memorandum still have to make further statement over the concerns we expressed above before it was implemented. If the author can identify the basic effect of TV programs, the necessity of public funding would be justified. To further strengthen the argument, the author should also give out a backup deal over the effect on local cultural industry.。