GMAT作文為analytical writing, 需要花費的時間較長。在argument準備過程中，邏輯思維至關重要。一般需要通過例題來掌握分析技巧，儲備必要的基本邏輯常識，完成從零散到系統、從片面到全面、從膚淺到深刻的.轉變，最終能夠勝任argument寫作。分析涵蓋全面性、辯證性和透徹性。一般來說，GMAT作文題目有以下幾個方面：1. 無因果關係;2. 樣品不足;3. 錯誤類比;4. 所有事情是平等的;5. 非此即彼的選擇;6. 調查可疑;7. 結論無據。這幾個方面需要大家在準備過程中，多思考，多體會。以下是GMAT作文模板和範例，希望對大家有所引導。
一、每段開頭：
1. The majorproblem with this argument is that -------
2. Another flawworth discussing is that(the assumption that----)
3. Finally it isnecessary to point out -(several other minor flaws that might undermine theargument----)
二、證據可疑：questionable
4. Anotherassumption short of legitimacy is that----(unfounded/groundless/doubtful/unconvincing)
5. The argumentis based on the assumption that--------
6. The reasonthat ----is open to doubt (persuasive)--should be d?
7. The arguercommits a fallacy of the question in assaying(?) that--------
三、Ending:
8. In conclusionthe arguer fails to validate/(establish) the claim----
9. To solidifythe argument, the arguer should provide more concrete information todemonstrate that---
以下以例子來說明。
The following appeared in the editorialsection of a local newspaper:
“Thispast winter, 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the statecapitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various statecollege programs. The other 12,000 Waymarsh students evidently weren’t soconcerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left forwinter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it ismore representative of the state’s college students than are the protesters. Thereforethe state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.”
邏輯漏洞：
1. 文中說另外12000學生對他們的教育不感興趣，因為他們沒參加遊行，躲在學校或放假去了。他們不參加遊行不等於對教育不感興趣，也許是有其他事情沒法參加，或者是認為太多人蔘加遊行不好管理，就派代表。
2. 文中說不參加遊行的人數遠多於參加的人數，所以protester的意見只代表一小部分人。這個沒有直接關係，也許protester正是由所有學生選出來的代表，他們的意見就是全體學生的意見。
3.遊行的人也許是部分學校部分專業的學生，沒有整體代表性。
sample:
Based on the fact that the group who didnot protest is far more numerous than the group who did protest, the authorconcludes that the state legislature need not heed the appeals of theprotesting students. To reach this conclusion, the author cites the number ofboth the students who did protest and those who did not protest. On the firstsight, the author’s reasoning seems convincing, but after further reflection, Ifound that it is illogically problematic in three aspects.
First, the author concludes that the12,000 students weren’t so concerned about their education because they eitherstayed on campus or left for winter break. But this may not be the truth. Thestudents who did not travel to the state capital building to protest were notnecessarily indifferent about the protest. For example, they may be eager toparticipate the activity, but they were not very well during those days, orthey had such important things to do as taking exams or having interviews. Insuch conditions, these students who either stayed on campus or left for winterbreak had to get information about the protest from mass media such as radio,magazine, newspaper, television, or the Internet. Without giving the reason ofthese students for not going to protest, one can not draw the conclusion thatthey did not care the protest.
Second, the author states that the groupwho did not protest is more representative than are the protesters. While, thisis not the case if the protesters are the representatives of the students whodid not protest. A protest which too many people take part in is hard toorganize. To ensure that the protest is well-organized and reaches its originalgoals, fewer people is needed.
Third, the author cites the case inWaymarsh State College to buttress the statement that the state legislatureneed not heed the appeals of the protesting students. But the issue is relevantto all the colleges through the state. So the situation in Waymarsh StateCollege is not representative of several colleges. That few students inWaymarsh State College traveled to protest could be caused by the fact that fewstudents in Waymarsh State College take the programs which will undergo theproposed cuts in funding. This situation is not necessarily applicable to othercolleges. Without illustrating the representativeness of the example he cites,the author cannot use a specific case to draw a general conclusion.
In conclusion, the author’s reasoning isflawed. The students who did not protest are not necessarily unconcerned abouttheir education, the group who did not protest is not necessarily morerepresentative than are the protesters, and the example in Waymarsh StateCollege is not necessarily representative of all the colleges and universitiesin the state. To reach his conclusion, the author should investigate why theother 12,000 students did not protest and how the cases were in other colleges.
