开头段、主体段、结尾段，并附上了详细的写作思路和注意事项。

GMAT作文模板核心原则

1. 立场明确：开头段必须明确指出论证的主要缺陷，不要说“有好有坏”，要直接说“论证有严重缺陷，因此结论不可靠”。
2. 结构清晰：采用“总-分-总”的结构，让考官一目了然。
3. 逻辑分析：不要复述原文内容，要分析论证的逻辑漏洞，每个主体段只讨论一个核心缺陷。
4. 语言专业：使用客观、严谨的学术语言，避免使用过于情绪化或口语化的词汇。

模板详解

第一部分：开头段 - 开门见山，亮明观点

目标：在2-3分钟内完成，清晰地概括论证，并指出其核心问题。

模板句式：

1. 背景引入：

   • This argument concludes that [复述作者的结论].
   • The author's line of reasoning is that [简要概括作者的论据和推理过程].
   • In support of this conclusion, the author points out that [提及一到两个关键论据].

2. 核心缺陷：

   • However, this argument is flawed and unconvincing for several critical reasons.
   • The author's conclusion relies on a series of questionable assumptions and fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim.
   • While the conclusion may have some merit, the argument as it stands is logically unsound.

3. 预览主体段：

   • First, the argument assumes that [指出第一个主要缺陷], which may not necessarily be true.
   • Second, the author fails to consider [指出第二个主要缺陷], which could significantly weaken the conclusion.
   • Finally, the argument suffers from a causal fallacy by attributing [指出第三个主要缺陷].

【开头段示例】

This argument concludes that the city of Weston should allocate a significant portion of its annual budget to improving its public parks. The author's line of reasoning is that well-maintained parks will attract more tourists, boost the local economy, and consequently increase tax revenues. In support of this conclusion, the author points out that neighboring cities with similar park investments have seen a rise in tourism. However, this argument is flawed and unconvincing for several critical reasons. First, the argument assumes that the economic conditions and tourist appeal of Weston are directly comparable to its neighbors, which may not necessarily be true. Second, the author fails to consider the opportunity cost of this investment, as the funds could be used for more pressing public needs like infrastructure or education. Finally, the argument oversimplifies the relationship between park investment and economic growth, ignoring other potential factors.

第二部分：主体段 - 分点论述，逐一击破

目标：每个主体段聚焦一个核心逻辑漏洞，进行深入分析，这是得分的关键部分，通常写2-3段即可。

标准结构（每个主体段）： 主题句 + 分析 + 举例/反例 + 小结

模板句式：

第一主体段（通常是“不当假设”）

• 主题句：
  • A primary flaw in the argument is its reliance on the unsubstantiated assumption that... (一个主要缺陷是其基于未经证实的假设...)
  • The argument rests on a questionable premise that... (论证基于一个可疑的前提...)
• 分析：
  • Specifically, the author assumes that... (作者假设...)
  • However, there is no evidence provided to support this claim. (没有证据支持这一说法。)
  • This assumption is weak because... (这个假设很弱，因为...)
• 举例/反例：
  • For instance, it is entirely possible that... (完全有可能...)
  • Without ruling out this alternative explanation, the conclusion is premature. (如果不能排除这种替代解释，结论就为时过早。)
  • Consider a scenario where... In this case, the author's reasoning would fall apart. (设想一个场景...在这种情况下，作者的推理就会站不住脚。)
• 小结：
  • Therefore, unless the author can provide concrete evidence to prove that... the argument remains unconvincing. (除非作者能提供具体证据来证明...，否则论证仍然缺乏说服力。)

【第一主体段示例】

A primary flaw in the argument is its reliance on the unsubstantiated assumption that Weston's economic conditions and tourist appeal are directly comparable to those of its neighboring cities. Specifically, the author assumes that what worked for City A and City B will also work for Weston. However, there is no evidence provided to support this claim. This assumption is weak because each city has its unique characteristics. For instance, Weston might lack the historical landmarks or cultural events that draw tourists to its neighbors, or it might be located in a less accessible geographical area. Without ruling out these significant differences, the author's conclusion that park investment will lead to a similar boost in tourism is premature and unsupported.

第二主体段（通常是“因果倒置/忽略他因”）

• 主题句：
  • The argument also commits a fallacy of oversimplification by suggesting a direct causal relationship between... (论证还犯了过度简化的错误，暗示了...之间的直接因果关系...)
  • Another critical weakness is that the author fails to consider other potential factors that could contribute to... (另一个关键弱点是作者没有考虑可能导致...的其他潜在因素...)
• 分析：
  • The author concludes that A causes B, but it is equally plausible that B causes A, or that some other factor C causes both A and B. (作者得出A导致B的结论，但同样有可能是B导致A，或者是某个其他因素C同时导致了A和B。)
  • For example, the increase in tourism in neighboring cities might be due to... rather than their park investments. (邻国旅游业的增长可能是由于...而不是他们的公园投资。)
  • The author's plan ignores other crucial elements such as... (作者的计划忽略了其他关键要素，..)
• 小结：
  • Thus, the causal link drawn by the author is not logically sound. (作者得出的因果联系在逻辑上不成立。)

【第二主体段示例】

Another critical weakness is that the author fails to consider other potential factors that could contribute to the economic success of neighboring cities. The author concludes that park investment leads to economic growth, but it is equally plausible that the economic growth came first, allowing those cities to afford better parks. For example, those cities might have experienced a boom in the tech industry or hosted a major international event, which attracted tourists and increased revenues. The author's plan ignores these crucial elements and wrongly attributes the entire economic benefit to park improvements. Thus, the causal link drawn by the author is not logically sound.

第三主体段（通常是“数据/样本问题”或“概念模糊”）

• 主题句：
  • Finally, the argument is weakened by a lack of specific evidence and a vague definition of key terms. (论证因缺乏具体证据和关键术语的模糊定义而削弱。)
  • The author's claim is based on limited or potentially unrepresentative data. (作者的声明基于有限或不具代表性的数据。)
• 分析：
  • The author uses vague terms such as "a significant portion" or "more tourists" without providing any numerical data. (作者使用了“很大一部分”或“更多游客”等模糊术语，没有提供任何数据。)
  • How much is "significant"? What is the baseline for "more"? Without this information, it is impossible to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of the proposal. (“很大一部分”是多少？“更多”的基准是什么？没有这些信息，就无法评估该提议的可行性和潜在影响。)
  • Moreover, the sample size of neighboring cities is too small to be statistically significant. (邻市的样本量太小，不具备统计显著性。)
• 小结：
  • Consequently, the argument lacks the necessary quantitative support to be persuasive. (论证缺乏必要的定量支持，无法令人信服。)

【第三主体段示例】

Finally, the argument is weakened by a lack of specific evidence and a vague definition of key terms. The author proposes allocating "a significant portion" of the budget to parks but fails to define what this means. Is it 10%, 30%, or 50% of the budget? Similarly, the author expects to attract "more tourists" but provides no baseline figures or targets. How many tourists are there currently, and how many more are needed to make the investment worthwhile? Without this quantitative information, it is impossible to evaluate the financial prudence of