在練習 GMAT 寫作時,，參考范文學習是幾乎每位考生都會做的事情，但從范文中能夠收獲多少東西有時候卻完全因人而異。有些考生能夠收益不菲,，有些則只是看過一遍毫無收獲,。下面小編就來為大家實例解析幫助大家看到高分范文亮點優(yōu)點。
　　 下面是一篇給出滿分的范文,，我們來一起賞析,，看看它為何能 scored six ( 先讀文章，再看我的點評 )
　　The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
　　"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
　　Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
　　首段
　　This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn ’ t necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.
　　中間段 1
　　The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.
　　中間段 2
　　This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.
　　中間段 3
　　Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
　　末端
　　In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment ( i.e., coal mine ) . Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.
　　 這篇欽定 GMAT 滿分作文,，其明顯的優(yōu)點在于：
　　1,、字數(shù)高達 599words, 充分體現(xiàn)了字數(shù)為王的判分傾向。
　　2,、標準的五段制,，首段、末端,，中間三段,，看上去很美。
　　3,、沒有陳詞濫調,、滿篇廢話的模板式語言。
　　只有以上三點離滿分還是很遠的,，之所以 SIX,，我看更重要的在于，每段各盡其責,，既獨立又統(tǒng)一,，形成了完整的 ARGUMENT，specifically:
　　1,、首段再現(xiàn)了原 TOPIC 的推理過程,，并指出其 assumptions 多有不適 ; 尤其令閱卷人高興的是：首段在之后簡化羅列了推理中的三個問題。要知道美國人就喜歡的作文 --- 總分式,，在首段就把三個 ideas 羅列出來,，然后在中間三段分別展開，先總后分,，一目了然,。
　　2、中一的 TS -- "The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment." 可謂是一針見血,，一劍封喉,。對于這樣嚴重的推理漏洞，如果不首先指出,，其 argument 必然軟弱乏力,。此所謂 Topic 中的 " 必削點 ",，不可不察。
　　3,、中二的 TS – "This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment." 這可謂是劍走偏鋒,，獨辟蹊徑，出人所料,。文章竟然批評了 Topic 以錢為本經營理念,，提出了要以人為本，這樣寫是有一定風險,，畢竟這不是 Issue,。那本文是如何化險為夷的呢 ? 且看本段之后一句 "this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees." 我不由得長舒一口，人家再次回歸了,，又回到了 Topic 中以 "Money" 為本的推理,。
　　4、中三的 TS – "Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer." 這充分體現(xiàn)了作者不只是坐而論道的 arguer,，而是關心其可行性的現(xiàn)實者,，考慮到方案本身的可行性和局限性。
　　5,、末端不但對首段提出的論點做出了重復性的總結,，而且又不厭其煩地吧中間三段的 ideas 一一羅列。如此 "? 嗦 " 估計令某些同學略有不齒,，但這恰恰是美國人的愛,，cultural shock 了吧 ?