sat写作例文篇一：
Oceans, the world’s largest natural resource, cover much more areas than the land within theUnited States’ territories, but receive much less protection. Responding to the phenomenon, Laura Bush, the former First Lady of the country, writes a commentary in Wall Street Journal to call upon more preservation of “our waters and marine habitats.” Strong contrasting, abundant evidence and appeal to pathos facilitate her compelling argument that our duty is to conserve wild marine areas that remain when the sea frontiers are retreating.
In developing her claims for the need to protect the oceans, Bush has employed various kinds of evidence, including facts, examples and statistics, to reason with the reader and explain the significance of the natural resource. Most readers might not realize severity of such protection since they are satisfied with great progress “made in protecting our environment over the past several decades.” To awaken them to the claim that the oceans lack protection, the author is at pains to provide some statistics to reveal what the country fails to do: “Less than one-half of 1% of the world's oceans” cannot be conserved in their primitive form, and “up to 90% of large fish” disappear in some parts of the oceans. These data would leave the readers greatly surprised. She further utilizes facts and personal anecdote to raise another claim that the ocean pollutions are killing marine lives. A “plastic garbage dump twice the size of Texas” presents a vivid image about how huge the dump is, and the readers would now feel shocked rather than just surprised. Her personal accounts that birds die because of plastic debris could also sadden the readers and stir their pity for the innocent wildlife. A third claim she made – people are “at risk of permanently losing vital marine resources and harming our quality of life” – is also backed up with cold, hard facts: the oceans “produce oxygen, reduce pollution, and remove carbon dioxide.” The readers are, again, reminded of the importance of the resource. These claims and their evidence are well-connected to serve as solid reasons to sway the readers into her position.
Evidence can be observed across the article. Another strategy found throughout is the author’s appeal to pathos. In the very beginning of her article, for example, Bush encourages the public to conserve the oceans if they want the resource to “remain a vibrant source of life for future generations.” The line would touch the readers’ heartstrings. Those who have enjoyed the vitality brought by the oceans would worry that their children and grandchildren could lose the opportunity to appreciate the grandeur of the natural resource. These worries would surely spur some of their responses and actions to protect the life cradle. At the very end, she appeals to the readers’ emotion once again, by comparing the oceans to “natural, undisturbed incubators of life.” The metaphor reminds the audience of the fact that the oceans create their life. The awe and respect thus aroused for the sea would urge them to preserve the origin of life on earth. By doing this, Bush concludes her argument with an emotional impact, adding striking power to the necessity of establishing new national marine parks.
The truth in the numbers, facts and examples is undeniable so that Bush makes her statement much more authentic. The emotional appeal is strong and affecting so that Bush makes her argument more attractive. It is with these strategies that she magnetizes her audience, leaving them no other thought but the one of conserving the largest natural resources.
sat写作例文篇二：
Globalization is becoming palpably more relevant to the day-to-day experience of American, and foreign language education is disappearing. In response to this, Linda Moore argues that investing in bilingual and multilingual education is the obligation of local education authorities in her article “Americans’ Future Has to Be Multilingual”. She effectively builds her argument by using reasoning, emotional appeals and sufficient authoritative evidence.
To make his argument potent, Moore uses step-by-step logical reasoning. In the first 5 paragraphs, by asserting that “our nation is largely monolingual but is entering an increasing multilingual”, she first reasons that foreign language education in America is relatively insufficient, compared with other countries. To further win over his readers, she continues to point out that learning additional languages benefits children more than some adults expect, because it facilitates study in other subjects, staves off the effects of aging and improves their career prospects. All the reason presented here build a multi-layer reasoning that leads readers logically to the conclusion that investment in multilingualism is worthwhile. The author appeals to readers’ logic and establish solid foundation for her argument.
Building upon the momentum generated by convincing reasons, the author further utilizes well-crafted diction to reinforce his argument. When describing “a stark disadvantage” we confront, she utilizes disparity of current language teaching between our nation and China, to highlight our lagging-behind education, compared with our oversea competitors. This comparison touches the readers’ national pride and arouses the public awareness of investing in teaching foreign languages. These deliberately chosen words continues when he writes “most policymakers want their children to have global skill sets but do not encourage this in our public schools”. The behavioral difference casts ironic tone on the policymakers and implies the absurdity in our education policy, helping readers to realize the obligation to polish it. By doing so, she adds more power to her argument.
To complete her argument, the author achieves to build the cast for multilingual education in schools by abundant trustworthy evidence. She initiates her argument by quoting research statistics from influential institutions, such as U.S. Department of Education, George Mason University, D.C.-based Centre for Applied Linguistics, etc. She also cites Joel Klein, the former Secretary of State, who states that Americans grow less globally. Moore appeals to their fame to add credibility to her argument and lays groundwork for her central claim that Americans should recognize the deficiency in foreign language education.
A strong argument is composed by Lina Moore through reasoning, appeal to emotions and evidence from authoritative sources, swinging the audience to agree that it is imperative to encourage multilingual education.
sat写作例文篇三：
As more light is shed upon endangered species across the world by the rise of social media and internet news, more legislation has been enacted to stifle or reverse human related causes. In an attempt to provide insights into why current laws are counterproductive, Godfrey Harris and Daniel Stiles build a case for unintended consequences in their article entitled “The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants”. The authors’ use of ethos to establish urgency, appeal to logos through paradox and facts, and appeal to pathos through anecdotes are used to develop a convincing argument against recent legislation.
Godfrey Harris and Daniel Stiles utilize ethos near the beginning of the essay to demonstrate the high importance of the topic at hand. A reference to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services’ “recent…prohibition of commercial importation of all African elephant ivory” shows that the drastic measures that have recently been taken are potentially causing widespread affect. He immediately follows this up with a direct reference to the the President of the United State’s involvement and concern of this matter by stating the “Obama administration is also planning to implement additional rules that will prohibit…trade”. These direct references to the highest levels of authoritative government clearly display to the readers the seriousness of the legislation, thus setting up the reader to understand how any negative affects of legislation could amplify potential negative effects.
After establishing the topic and its importance, the authors employ logos to build a logical case against negative implications of regulations imposed. A startling statistic is presented to convey the wastefulness and mismanagement of ivory — “six tons of ivory” were “destroyed” by the U.S. government in the preceding fall instead of managing trade better. The authors continue on by detailing affected groups, showing that “musicians already [suffer from] months long delays in securing permits”, along with collectors, gun owners and antiques dealers, whose belongings are “effectively rendered…worthless”. Furthermore, the author introduces a paradox by showing the rules intended to curb illegal hunting of elephants would actually cause the “[ivory] price to balloon and black market to flourish, pushing up the profit potential of continued poaching”. The authors’ de锝擄絻锝掞綁锝愶綌ion of affected parties and juxtaposition of intended versus probably consequences demonstrate a logical complication of the rash decisions made to enforce these laws.
To further their case, the authors appeal to the readers’ pathos through anecdote to exemplify their position. A real life case study of Ben Treuhaft, a professional piano technician, is used to convey the exhaustive paperwork and export permit requirements that are exceedingly difficult to acquire, making transportation of his personal belongings nearly impossible. Furthermore, the previous “governmental exercise of discretion” on a case-by-case basis is now outlawed, taking away any ability to appeal against unfounded circumstances. As a result, Steinway & Son’s, the famous piano company that touched the lives of countless middle class families in the 1800s, is disappointed that “its oldest known upright [piano] is stuck in Japan. The authors indicate that this is just one of many situations where history, culture and monetary value and are being lost due to this legislation. This vivid depiction through example leads the reader to truly understand how “draconian” these rules are.
To conclude, Godfrey Harris and Daniel Stiles make a strong, convincing case against recent rules imposed against ivory trade. Their initial use of authority to establish relevance and credibility on topic is later bolstered with a proficient use of appeal to logical and emotional reasoning to garner support for their position on the issue.