A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.
A typical paper in this category exhibits the following characteristics:
1.clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
2.develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
3.effectively supports the main points of the critique
4.demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety
5.demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors
标准解读
要点 1：clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
关键词：identifies important features, insightfully
1.identifies important features即鉴别一篇Argument的逻辑漏洞和错误。 important一词说明考生无需指出原文所有的逻辑错误，只要发现主要的错误，并进行有理有据的批判即可。
2.insightfully即Data Mining(数据挖掘)。GMAT作文看重思辨， 并且非常强调对于每个主要逻辑错误进行深入的“理性批判”。理性批判的意思是洞察和挖掘每一类逻辑错误“背后的逻辑原理”。 “insightful”要求考生从逻辑原理的层面来攻击每一类逻辑错误。
例如，在GMAT Argument题库里调查(survey)类错误属于高频逻辑错误。 考生在写文章的时候, 仅仅强调“此调查有问题，数据不真实，结论站不住脚”等，是非常肤浅的。 真正的“理性批判”是要从“统计学”原理出发来指出调查的问题。 例如从样本的“quantity”和“quality”两个角度来分析题中给出的调查。
1)"quantity"指样本数量。此攻击原理是“必须同时给出样本的绝对数量以及所占的相对比例”。 例如某题目中给出如下的调查数据：5万名被调查者建议取消公司的打卡制度。 对于此题我们要看到题干中并未给出公司员工的总量： 如果总量很大，那么5万只占了很小的比例。 同样地，另一题中：99%被调查的学生认为作业量过大。对于此题我们依然要指出调查样本总量的问题：如果被调查学生的总量很小， 99%这一看似很高的比例也不能说明问题。
2)“quality”指样本质量。这也是调查类题目常见的一个错误点。题库中大量的调查类问题都未指出样本选择是否随机(random)。 如果不随机，这些样本的代表性(representativeness)无疑就被弱化了。
要点 2：develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
关键词： organizes them logically、connects、clear transitions
“GMAT写作的逻辑”包含形式逻辑和内容逻辑: 形式逻辑就是指文章起承转合的逻辑信号、逻辑连接词。它们连接不同的内容,使行文显得有层次。内容逻辑就是指文章含义推导过程的严密性，和我们后文即将解读的排序方式是高度相关的。
organizes them logically是本条评分标准的核心。在GMAT Argument写作里，只找到各类逻辑错误(find problems)是不够的。评分标准还要求我们很好地组织这些错误(organize the problems which you have found)。 只找到逻辑错误而没有将其组织好是无法拿到满分甚至高分的。
通常，考生可以运用三种“排序方式”来组织逻辑错误，即顺序排序、主次排序和让步排序。
1)顺序排序--即按照各类错误在原文中出现的顺序进行攻击;
2)主次排序--即按照逻辑错误的主次顺序来排序，此种排序方式相比顺序排序更为合理;
3)让步排序--最逻辑化的排序方式：首先攻击A错误不成立;其次在攻击B错误不成立之前，假定即便A成立，B仍然不成立;最后引出即便A、B均成立，还可以得到C不成立。 这样的“organization”显示了强大的逻辑思辨能力。
因此，GMAT 作文考试要求考生不仅仅零散地找到几个逻辑错误，而且要合理地组织逻辑错误的呈现顺序,让文章的段落之间连贯一致，浑然一体。
要点 3：effectively supports the main points of the critique
关键词：main points of the critique
此条标准与上文中第一条评分标准，即identifies important features非常一致，强调鉴别一篇驳论文的重要特征以及主要逻辑漏洞。
要点 4：demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety
关键词：variety
用词用句的变化性能有效地体现行文语言的多样性。
要点 5：demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors
关键词：standard written English, may have minor errors
1. standard written English
即使用标准的书面英语。英语口语体不合适用于GMAT这类准学术型的分析性写作中。 因此考生应注意标准的书面英语的语法，用词和文法。
2. may have minor errors
GMAT作文允许有错误的存在。考官认为，一篇满分的文章可以有错误，尤其是个别的拼写错误、语法错误和用词不当。这不影响一篇文章得高分。 只要这篇文章准确地提炼了要点、做到了精确的对应匹配、逻辑性强、语言水平高即可。
范文赏析
GMAT Argument22
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.”
Answer：
This editorial asserts that property taxes for railroad companies should be lowered by the government. The first reason stated is that railroads spend a great deal of money every year maintaining and upgrading facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by railroad is both cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is not convincing for several reasons.
First of all, the argument relies on an inaccurate comparison between railroad and truck company expenditure. Even though trucking companies do not pay property tax on the roads they use, they do pay taxes on the property they use, including the warehouses and the maintenance facilities they own. While trucking companies pay only a part of the total road maintenance cost, this is because the roads are public and were not designed for the sole use of the truck companies. Railroad companies must assume the entirety of maintenance and tax fees on their own facilities and tracks because they are privately owned; they have the chance to mitigate the costs by distributing these costs to other users through usage fees.
Additionally, the author unwarrantedly assumes that property taxes should be structured in order to provide for cost-effective and environmentally-friendly business practices. This assumption is dubitable because the fundamental use of property tax is to reflect the value of the property being taxed. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effective and environmentally-sound measures are relevant in equal proportion to tax relief. However, these are considerations which are totally separate. The impact of a practice on environment might be useful for determining tax structuring, but society does not automatically reward a business for its cost-efficiency.
Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact underscores an equivocal assertion in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it may be appropriate for me to ship furniture by rail because it is the most cost-effective choice; on the other hand, it may be socially and environmentally responsible to encourage railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus balances social correctness on the one hand, and personal values on the other.
In conclusion, this argument is a confusion of flimsy comparisons, conflated issues and highly ambiguous claims. I would not accept the conclusion without more information regarding tax structure, whether specific tax benefits should extend to property as well as to income and capital gains taxes, whether railway shipping does indeed provide increased social benefits, and whether it is justifiable to motivate increased railway shipping on this basis.