Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

　　很明显，这种指令与前4讲涉及的两种指令又不一样了，主要区别还可见诸于：

　　* 坑位捕捉：这种题型刷多了，大家也会毫无例外地发现它们的常见“漏洞”，即：statements里会含有各种比较容易且方便笔者去攻击的点，所以针对这种题，笔者更加愿意先入为主地“推荐”朋友们写disagree.

　　* 高分要诀：别忘了敌方观点!别忘了敌方观点!别忘了敌方观点!重要的事情说三遍。

　　* 学术前沿：ETS设计了AW这么一个单独计分的模块，却不计入总分核算，这让很多人觉得AW简直就是鸡肋的存在。其实不然!在Analyze an Issue Task中，考生可以得到充分的驳论与立论能力的锻炼，而这两项能力组合在一起恰恰决定了一个学生在postgraduate years中是否能“开心地”经过海量论文的蹂躏，尤其是对文科同学而言。再换言之，对于任何与文科挂钩的专业，如果AW部分表现优异，诸如拿到了4.0+的分数，那么相比于总分相差无几的申请者，淘汰对手的几率也会大大增加。

　　* 笔者寄语：很多事情经历且征服后会显得枯索无味，但issue不会。每一场issue都是充满哲思的辩论与争锋。

　　我们还是以上一讲的题目为例：

　　Claim: In any field - business, politics, education, government - those in power should step down after five years.

　　Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

　　发现了么，题干中是不是存在着各种笔者上述的“坑”?不容分说，笔者的立场为“不同意”。

　　嗯，对，两句话都不同意。

　　于是乎，笔者的敌方观点就可以是“领导权更迭对企业走向成功挺重要的”或“商界、政界、教育界中的当权者在位五年后就远离权力走廊也是行得通的”。

　　笔者以此二思路做了个的梗概及大体写作演示，如下：

　　[Introduction]

　　此处略去，原文见上一讲。

　　[Body Para. 1]

　　此处略去，原文见上一讲。

　　[Body Para. 2]

　　论证思路：轮到敌方观点登场了。那就从思维底层走到我们的反方去，行文风格可以托福一点儿，不碍事。

　　I can truly understand why some of my opponents advocate that leaders should step down from the corridor of power after five years. They may think a five-year presidency, acting as a deterrent, can moderately prevent and even eradicate some deeply-rooted malpractices, such as the formation of criminal forces, nepotism, and bribery or corruption. Chairman Mao and his last ten years of presidency can serve as a telling illustration. It is because he has been on the throne during his declining years when his mental powers and critical thinking have been gradually deteriorating that he, accompanied and tempted by some malicious political staff, finally made some disastrous decisions, such as launching the Cultural Revolution bringing considerable miseries to the whole nation. With a mandatory abdication after five years, the crimes might not be too many to mention.

　　[Body Para. 3]

　　论证思路：敌方观点都说成那样子了，赶紧见招拆招呗，找漏洞去攻击即可。为防读者阅读此公号实在没什么参与感，本段写作演示采用中文代替，诸位可做实时视译。

　　但是，只要权力得到一定的监督与制衡，其实上面的那些坏现象都是可以被很好地规避的。事实上来说，任何政策的制定、执行、修改、完善、再执行都是需要时间的沉淀和历史的见证的。换句话来说，如果五年就轻易换一位领导人的话，他/她很有可能做不出什么丰功伟绩就默默退出历史舞台了，因为一个国家、政党、企业的内部情况通常都是十分错综复杂的，这对管理和改革都提出很大的挑战性。其实，历史上连任数十年并且将一个国家、政党带向繁荣成功的康庄大道上的领导人的案例也是不胜枚举的。诸如：罗斯福正是因为连任才能将新 政彻底贯彻最终带领美国人民走出经济大萧条的阴霾，这为后来的战时格局奠定了不可磨灭的功绩。

　　【本段解析】

　　是不是发现这个中文版本你都不一定写得出来?没关系，回去看看书吧。

　　[Body Para. 4

　　论证思路：看到claim里面的众多fields了么?我们索性再补一刀，来，本段就以GRE该有的行文要求来展示破解。

　　Finally, if we switch our attention to the field of business, we find that changes in leadership are much more flexible. All that a new leader should be equipped with is the potential or capability to bring maximum profits. In the business world, unanticipated bargaining success could endow an unsung Joe with widespread reputation which even a much older businessman would covet. However, itis of equal possibility that an eminently respected entrepreneur could lose his/her crown overnight for an unexpected failure in a regular negotiation. From this perspective, neither the reason nor the claim of this issue stands tenable in the business field. Leadership hinges on profits--this allegation may sound harsh, but few would dispute its validity.

　　[Conclusion]

　　转述introduction的主要论点即可，此处略去。