GMAT作文范文及解析：地铁通勤者
28. The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
“Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.”
地方报纸的社论：
通勤者对新的地铁的使用超过了运输公司的设计方案。但是，通勤者对运送人们去地铁站的往返巴士使用低于设计容量。如果运输公司希望通勤者乘往返巴士而不是开车去地铁站，他们必须或者降低巴士车费，或者提高地铁站的停车费。
1. 对原因估计的可能不对.由作者给出的他认为必须执行的解决方案来看,作者一定认为人们不坐往返巴士而是开车去地铁站的原因是巴士车费相对于地铁站的停车费来说比较贵.To begin with, by concluding that the transit company must either reduce shuttle fares or increase parking fees, the author assumes that these are the only available solutions to the problem of limited shuttle use.但事实原因可能还有很多.例如:巴士的环境不好速度比较慢中间间隔时间太长车站位置不好等等.
2. 相应的作者所提出的两个必须要执行的解决方案也就不一定实用.应对于上述提到的问题可能一个比较好的解决方案是:对巴士进行装修把车站设置在更为便利的地方提高巴士的车速缩短时间间隔.
inconvenient shuttle routing and/or scheduling adjust adopt mutually exclusive combination
The author assumes that reducing shuttle fees and increasing parking fees are mutually exclusive alternatives. impose However, the author provides no reason for imposing an either/or choice.
1， 没有排除他因，这两个是否是唯一的原因
2， 解决方案不是false dilemma。
The author concludes that the local transit company must either reduce fares for the shuttle buses that transport people to their subway stations or increase parking fees at the stations. The reasons offered to support this conclusion are that commuter use of the subway train is exceeding the transit company’s expectations, while commuter use of the shuffle buses is below projected volume. This argument is unconvincing because the author oversimplifies the problem and its solutions in a number of ways.
To begin with, by concluding that the transit company must either reduce shuttle fares or increase parking fees, the author assumes that these are the only available solutions to the problem of limited shuttle use. However, it is possible that other factors—such as inconvenient shuttle routing and/or scheduling, safety concerns, or an increase in carpools—contribute to the problem. If so, adjusting fares or parking fees would might not solve the problem.
In addition, the author assumes that reducing shuttle fees and increasing parking fees are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author provides no reason for imposing an either/or choice. Adjusting both shuttle fares and parking fees might produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that parking fees and shuttle fees are the only possible causes of the problem, then the most effective solution might include a complex of policy changes—for example, in shuttle fares, parking fees, rerouting, and rescheduling.
In conclusion, this argument is weak because the author oversimplifies both the problem and its possible solutions. To strengthen the argument the author must examine all factors that might account for the shuttle’s unpopularity. Additionally, the author should consider all possible solutions to determine which combination would bring about the greatest increase in shuttle use.