GMAT Analytical Writing Assessment: Пример написания сочинения
Секция написания аналитического эссе (AWA - Analytical Writing Assessment) является составной частью теста GMAT. Чтобы получить высокий балл, необходимо написать сочинение, которое соответствует сути задания. Поскольку секция называется "аналитическое письмо", Вы должны продемонстрировать, прежде всего, логические и аналитические навыки. В предложенном Вам рассуждении Вам наллежит определить, как минимум, три логические ошибки, аргументировано описать их и рекомендовать способы их устранения.
Большая часть ошибок связана с неподтвержденными предположениями, которые автор аргумента использует в своем рассуждении Кроме того, Вы можете встретить ошибки обобщения, аналогии, необоснованной причинно-следственной связи, подмены понятий и другие.
“The problem of poorly trained teachers that has plagued the state public school system is bound to be solved soon. The state has initiated comprehensive guidelines that oblige state teachers to complete a number of required credits in education and educational psychology at the graduate level before being certified.”
Explain how logically persuasive you find this argument. In discussing your viewpoint, analyze the argument’s line of reasoning and its use of evidence. Also explain what, if anything, would make the argument more valid and convincing or help you to better evaluate its conclusion.
Мы можем определить три неподтвержденных предположения автора:
1. The required courses will make better teachers.
2. Current inefficient teachers have not already had similar training.
3. The poor teachers currently working will either stop teaching in the future or will have received training.
При написании сочинения рекомендуется каждую отдельную логическу ошибку расскрыть в отдельном абзаце. Таким образом, сочинение может структурно состоять из введения, трех абзацов основной части (по одному на каждую ошибку) и заключения. Пример сочинения AWA приводится ниже.
The writer concludes that the present problem of poorly trained teachers will be solved in the future due to required credits in education and psychology. Although the author’s reasoning seems logical and persuasive at first glance, it is quite controversial: the argument’s conclusion relies on numerous unsupported assumptions and additional information is needed in order to evaluate the writer’s assertion.
First, the writer assumes that the required courses will make better teachers. In fact, the suggested training might be entirely irrelevant to the teachers’ failings. If, for example, the prevalent problem is cultural or linguistic gaps between teacher and student, graduate level courses that do not address these specific issues probably won’t do much good. The argument that the courses in education and educational psychology will improve teachers would be strengthened if the writer provided evidence that these courses will be relevant to the problems.
In addition, the writer assumes that current poor teachers have not already had this training. In fact, the writer doesn’t mention if some or all of the poor teachers have had similar training. The argument would be strengthened considerably if the writer provided evidence that current poor teachers have not had training comparable to the new requirements.
Finally, the writer assumes that poor teachers currently working will either stop teaching in the future or will have received training. The writer provides no evidence, though, to indicate that this is the case, so his assumption is not supported by facts. As the argument stands, it’s highly possible that only brand-new teachers will receive the training, and the bright future to which the writer refers is decades away. Only if the writer provides evidence that all teachers in the system will receive training—and will then change their teaching methods accordingly—does the argument hold.
The writer asserts that the current situation of poorly trained teachers will improve in the future because teachers will be required to undertake graduate-level courses in education and psychology. This argument, however, is not convincing since it relies on many assumptions for which the author provides no clear evidence. The writer fails to provide important facts on the basis of which his claims can be evaluated.