GMAT作文范文及解析：地方性报纸编者按
10. The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
“This past winter, 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. The other 12,000 Waymarsh students evidently weren’t so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it is more representative of the state’s college students than are the protesters. Therefore the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.”
地方性报纸的编者按：
过去的冬天里，200名学生从Waymarsh州立大学前往州府大楼抗议对各项州立大学项目基金进行削减的计划。另外12000名Waymarsh学生显然对他们的教育不太关心：他们或是留在学校里，或离开过寒假。由于不抗议的人群更大，他们比抗议人群更有资格代表州立大学学生。所以州立法会不必理会抗议者。
1. 代表学生的形成方式不知道。如果是随机产生的，那么去反对的学生完全可以代表学生总体。
2. 没去的学生不一定不关心。他们可能有更重要的事情要忙。例如要赶回家过圣诞节。有已经订好的寒假计划等等。
3. 此外，没去的学生之所以没有去很可能是因为他们觉得那些代表足可以代表他们表达心声。
1， 没有投诉不代表没有不满。很可能学生以其他的方式发泄不满意，比如absent the class, leave the school earlier, 等等。One obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that。。。很可能他们已经知道了学生去protest了，所以才没有去。
2， 200名学生不具有代表性的说法不对。很可能是被推选出来的elected to represent the entire students。缺乏根据的论证，错。
The conclusion in this argument is that the state legislature need not consider the views of protesting students. To support this conclusion, the author points out that only 200 of the 12,000 students traveled to the state capitol to voice their concerns about proposed cuts in college programs. Since the remaining students did not take part in this protest, the author concludes they are not interested in this issue. The reasoning in this argument is flawed for two reasons.
First, the author assumes that because only one-tenth of the students took part in the protest, these students’ views are unrepresentative of the entire student body. This assumption is unwarranted. If it turns out, for example, that the protesting students were randomly selected from the entire student body, their views would reflect the views of the entire college. Without information regarding the way in which the protesting students were selected, it is presumptuous to conclude that their opinions fail to reflect the opinions of their colleagues.
Second, the author cites the fact that the remaining 12,000 students stayed on campus or left for winter break as evidence that they are not concerned about their education. One obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that the students who did not participate did so with the knowledge that their concerns would be expressed by the protesting students. In any case, the author has failed to demonstrate a logical connection between the students’ alleged lack of concern and the fact that they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Without this connection, the conclusion reached by the author that the remaining 12,000 students are not concerned about their education is unacceptable.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to demonstrate that the protesting students had some characteristic in common that biases their views, thereby nullifying their protest as representative of the entire college.