为了便于大家更好的进行GMAT备考，了解不同文章的写作思路及构思，小编为大家带来了新，大家可以了解一下以下写作题目及写作范文的具体构成，一起来了解一下。
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.
31. The following appeared as part of the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm.
“Studies suggest that an average coffee drinker’s consumption of coffee increases with age, from age 10 through age 60. Even after age 60, coffee consumption remains high. The average cola drinker’s consumption of cola, however, declines with increasing age. Both of these trends have remained stable for the past 40 years. Given that the number of older adults will significantly increase as the population ages over the next 20 years, it follows that the demand for coffee will increase and the demand for cola will decrease during this period. We should, therefore, consider transferring our investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee.”
一家投资财经咨询公司的商务计划：
研究显示一个普通咖啡消费者的咖啡消耗从10到60岁随年龄增长，甚至在60岁以后，咖啡消费仍然保持很高。而一般的可乐消费者的可乐消费随年龄增加递减。在过去40年中这两个趋势都很稳定。由于在未来的20年内老年人口将显著增加，咖啡需求回增长而可乐需求会降低。因此，我们应该考虑将我们的投资从可口可乐转向雀巢咖啡。
1.all the things are equal 作者在得出这个推荐之前做了一个假设就是在未来的二十年中咖啡豆以及可乐的原料的相对价格不变.但这在这么长的一段时期是不可能的.很可能它们其中一种的原料相对于另外一种大幅度上升.由于相对成本的变化从而改变了相对价格也就改变了消费者的消费倾向.那么作者的建议就是完全靠不住的.
2.除了年龄因素很多其他的因素也会影响两种饮料的消费量例如某一代人可能在每个年龄段都比另一代人消费更多的可乐.除非作者排除这些其他因素,否则说理是gratuitous的
3.没有足够有力的证据表明该项研究结果就是可信的Finally, the firm unjustifiably relies on the studies that correlate coffee and cola consumption with age. The firm does not provide evidence to confirm the reliability of the studies.Moreover, while the phrase "studies suggest" may appear to lend credibility to these claims, the phrase is vague enough to actually render the claims worthless, in the absence of any information about them.
the author can not justify his recommendation ill-founded 无正当理由的
1， 老人数增加不能导致年轻人数减少。是错误的推测。同时，即使老人增加，那么增加的老人很可能不是coffee drinker。
2， 过去和未来不一样，未来可能两种成本变化，价格发生很大变化。
3， 该研究结果不一定可信!
In this argument a consulting firm recommends the transfer of investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee because, during the next 20 years, coffee demand will increase while cola demand will decrease. This prediction is based on the expectation that the number of older adults will significantly increase over the next 20 years, together with statistics, reportedly stable for the past 40 years, indicating that coffee consumption increases with age while cola consumption declines with increasing age. For three reasons, this financial advice may not be sound.
First, the argument assumes that relative supply conditions will remain unchanged over the next twenty years. However, the supply and cost of cola and coffee beans, as well as other costs of doing business as a producer of coffee or cola, may fluctuate greatly over a long time period. These factors may affect comparative prices of coffee and cola, which in turn may affect comparative demand and the value of investments in coffee and cola companies. Without considering other factors that contribute to the value of a coffee or cola company, the firm cannot justify its recommendation.
Secondly, the argument fails to account for the timing of the increase in coffee consumption. Perhaps the population will age dramatically during the next five years, then remain relatively flat over the following 15 years. Or perhaps most of the increase in average age will occur toward the end of the 20-year period. An investor has more opportunity to profit over the short and long term in the first scenario than in the second, assuming the investor can switch investments along the way. If the second scenario reflects the facts, the firm’s recommendation would be ill-founded.
Finally, the firm unjustifiably relies on the studies that correlate coffee and cola consumption with age. The firm does not provide evidence to confirm the reliability of the studies. Moreover, while the phrase “studies suggest” may appear to lend credibility to these claims, the phrase is vague enough to actually render the claims worthless, in the absence of any information about them.
In conclusion, the firm should not transfer investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee on the basis of this argument. To better evaluate the recommendation, we would need more information about the study upon which it relies. We would also need more detailed projections of population trends during the next 20 years.