GRE/GMAT

　　下面，我将再用GRE/GMAT的作文填空法来帮大家强化“魔板”的方法以及填空的概念。

　　其实跟新托福一样，GRE/GMAT中作文也分为两个部分：“一休”和“阿狗”。
那么这个部分也是同等重要，而且一个难以短期突破，一个只能短期突破，所以“魔板”的作用就在这里显示出来了。“阿狗”由于是驳论文，不需要发表考生自己的观点，只需要考生指出段落的逻辑错误即可，那么专门用来写驳论文的反驳式段落就显得非常重要，而我们大家都没有学过如何去写驳论文，所以可以说不背“魔板”基本就不可能及格。而背“魔板”也分高手和水手，所以我个人认为有以下三重境界：

　　·知道如何提炼“魔板”

　　·知道需要将提炼的“魔板”排列组合成自己的考试“魔板”

　　·知道怎么往“魔板”里正确、恰当地填空

　　只有达到这三重境界的全部才可能获得满分。下面我将以几个例子来巩固“魔板”的提炼方法以及重点介绍如何填空，而排列组合由于非常简单而且因人而异，这里就不再介绍，有问题可以发邮件跟我交流。

　　1. 开头段

　　In this argument, the arguer concludes that sending the mechanics of GAA to a two-week QCS on proper maintenance procedures will automatically lead to improved maintenance and to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for the airline. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the performance of the maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. In addition, the arguer reasons that since the maintenance crews of the automobile racing industry and the mechanics of GAA perform many of the same functions, the airlines will gain similar benefits from the training program. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

　　In this argument, the arguer recommends that C should advise its citizens to install both air conditioners and fans for cooling in order to reduce the cost of electricity. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that many citizens of C suffer from the rising costs of electricity. In addition, he cites the result of a recent study that using fans alone costs more than using air conditioners alone, and that using both fans and air conditioners costs less than either using fans or air conditioners alone. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

　　In this analysis, the arguer claims that P University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member that they hire. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of B College where professors prefer to have their spouse employed in the same geographical area. In addition, the arguer assumes that this offer of possible job for their spouse on the campus, no matter whether it will be accepted, is the only factor that new professors consider in deciding whether to accept a university position. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

　　In this argument, the arguer advocates that the C Corporation should hire DF, a family owned local company that offers varied menu of fish and poultry, instead of GT Company, the present supplier of food in C’s employee cafeteria. The recommendation is based on the observation that the GT is expensive, that its prices have kept rising, that it does not serve special diets, and that three employees complained about it. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes D to be a better choice for C because a sample lunch of this company that the arguer happened to taste was delicious. This argument is problematic for two reasons.