第一次ScoreItNow同主题
本帖最后由 iq28 于 2010-2-22 20:31 编辑抱歉，可能之前我表达有问题，很多桶子有点误解。如果有疑问，要在自己的几篇文章中表达出来。形成可以对比的文章，做得好我会把这两篇甚至多篇文章一起给erater改来看对比的效果。大部分桶子都只写了一篇文章，如何才能对比呢？具体的做法可以参考26楼的海王泪。
我现在在一篇篇大概扫文章，在2楼会贴出来。我在看完后马上会选若干篇文章给erater改，然后再留下一两天时间给只写了一篇文章的筒子。
=============================================================================================
Topic: Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Thefollowing appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper."Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publiclyowned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undevelopedstate. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses werebuilt there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as anatural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants topurchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider thisissue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or housescan be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devotedto athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in ourcommunity than this, since a large majority of our children participatein sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community asnatural parkland."
摩根顿镇，斯科特森林。开发与否，住宅，购物中心，计划委员会和有着体育场的学校。我就不多说以免影响大家的思路了。请筒子们把文章贴在这个帖子后面。
=============================================================================================
请仔细看以下规则，以免辛辛苦苦写的文章完全没有被选中的机会，自己的疑问也没法解决：每人贴一篇或更多篇文章。对的，没看错，可以一个人贴多篇，同一个题目。每个人请一定在回帖标题中写出自己所贴文章想解决的疑惑。
比如666不知道argument是否应该极尽八股之所能还是完全可以写成自由的文风，那666可以在文章具体内容不变的情况下写出一篇纯八股模板套内容一篇自由写作，同时标题写上‘八股与否’；林小乔不知道开头结尾的简介和总结是否一定必要，那和知音一样，一篇开头结尾简短来另一篇好好写开头和结尾，主题句简介总结都有同时写上相应的标题；bernina想知道一篇文章的攻击点应该尽量覆盖平均用力，还是很好地发展其中一两个点比较好，那就把自己的想法表达在两篇甚至更多篇文章中，当然文章长度，语言等其他风格水平尽量保持不变。家家想尝试一些剑走偏锋的写法，比如对作者的思路持一半肯定一半否定甚至全部肯定的看法（当然，这篇似乎不太可能），可以就按自己的想法把文章贴出来，而且对自己文章准备被判分的特点给与解释。
还有很多别的针对于这个题目或者整个argument的疑惑，桶子们尽管按照上面说的方法把自己的文章和对自己文章的评价贴出来，只要是有代表性，控制变量做得够好，或者很有新意的，都有可能被选中拿给ScoreItNow判分。
周六和周日都是大家可以贴文章的时间，而且请有着相同困惑的筒子们跟帖讨论自己的想法以及如何在文章中尝试的。讨论积极者的文章会被优先考虑拿去判分对比。
第一次，我会选6-10篇本主题的文章拿给scoreitnow改。提交给scoreitnow修改之前本贴二楼会贴出选中的文章以及准备讨论的话题，鼓励大家回帖讨论选中的文章。同样，讨论积极者的文章下一次活动会被优先考虑。
最后拿到ScoreItNow的分数后，会把分数和反馈粘贴在这个帖子的三楼，和大家一起回帖讨论，希望能够初步给出一两个大家关心的问题的初步答案。
简化版步骤： 贴题目(也就是本贴)----回帖贴作文+提出自己的文章想要解决的问题----大家一起讨论并选择合适的文章----讨论选中的文章----贴选中文章的判分----讨论结果。
有疑问请回帖。谢谢大家支持，你们的支持是我做这种傻事的动力：）
本帖最后由 iq28 于 2010-2-22 23:03 编辑
#5 by misir
The conclusion that they should built athletic fields if the land becomes a school site seems obvious at first glance, however, it cannot stand up to scrutiny, for several reasons I will discuss below.
To begin with, the author gains the conclusion that they should build no shopping centers or houses but develop Scott Woods to athletic fields basing on tenuous evidence that most of the children will participate in sports. Although, the health condition of the children, the next generation who will be the contributors of the nation, is of importance to the society, the author cannot assert that the best use of the land is to be athletic fields. （前面的结论是承认体育场对小孩很有用，但体
育场不一定是那块地最好的用途。由此，下面讲别的可能的更好的用途似乎合理一些；事实上你下面讲的都是讲公共地方作为体育馆本身这件事内部可能出现的问题） There is no evidence to show that in the newly built school, the playground or the gymnasium is not large enough or cannot meet the students’ need. It is likely that the school itself emphasis the physical condition of its students, so it will spend lots of money to built a modernization gymnasium. Thus, the athletic fields outside the school will be of no use at all. If the author cannot provide more information about the plan of the school, the conclusion is not persuasive.
In addition, the author makes the athletic fields equal to the natural parkland, which is not reasonable at all. It is commonplace that athletic fields contain various kinds, such as playgrounds,
swimming pools, skating rinks, tennis courts and so on. These all need to move the original plants away and rebuilt the place again. So the environment is likely to be damaged, and a new ecosystem may appear. Therefore, Scott Woods may not be natural parkland as before. To make the assertion reasonable, the author should provide more detailed information about the athletic fields.
Finally, the author ignores other factors while wrongly jumps to the conclusion that the shopping centers and houses should not appear. If the school is to be built, then the students are the main group of consumers. They need to purchase books, stationery, and so forth. And their homes should not be far away, for it is not wise to go to the school while wasting a lot of time on vehicles. So the houses near the school are a good choice to catch the parents’ attention, and the shopping center will make it more attractive. So, considering the traffic situation and the energy-saving issue, the author makes an unwise claim. And to make the claim wiser, the author should provide more information about the traffic conditions and the energy problem facing of the town and strike a balance between them. 这段很赞，基本没什么问题。不过没结尾了？
问题主要是：
1.在BODY的段尾，是否可以跟提意见的话？
有创意的想法，以前很多人会写在整个文章的尾部。有这个想法为什么不在这篇的基础上再改出另外一篇呢？也不会花很多时间。这样有两篇相对比的文章一起交给erater改，得到的分数才有意思嘛，对么？
2.开头是否可以不提出作者的逻辑错误，而仅仅是指出他的错误结论？
个人感觉，最好不要，而且开头要尽量简短点，不要过于长的像两行的句子。这个就要求自己对作者错误表述很好，对语言也有要求。同上，既然有这个想法，为什么不改出个姐妹篇呢？
3.如果有一些逻辑错误来不及在文中提及，是否会影响文章的得分？
太少了，肯定会，过于长的段落只讲一两个错误的文章很难高分。不过一般能写出三四个主要错误就可以了。我有时候感觉咱们桶子写argument比较适合多举错误，针对一个错误写很多的时候很多字数没什么效率。
我感觉如果给erater打分应该是3分可能性较大（sorry。。），4分可能性也有一些。第二段的后半段和第三段如果字数的效率能更高，比如用更少的字数比例点出作者的错误，举例说理更加支持自己每段指出作者的错误，或者把同样的字数分配在别的错误上，4分我觉得肯定可以有，有些语句做些修饰也许5分也没问题。加油！：）
==================================================================================================
7# by tequilawine
In our author's opinion, theutilization of this land which means there will be a school will stillmake it serve us well in future. Except the less reasoning, we stillcan find several causal flaws in this arbitrary decision.
In the first place, take a look at thebeginning of the passage, what we can know is just about the fact thatfive years ago, we made a decision to leave the land as anunderdeveloped place in order to benefit ourselves, but what we can notconclude is that whether we really get the interest from the action ornot. The result of it still being a puzzle for us, i think it's alittle bit too early to argue about the further action, because we knowno matter it comes out better or worse, yet, it will can not supportthe conclusion deriving from itself. 这两句是本段灵魂，很精辟。第一句指出问题所在，第二句写出对作者下面行文以及结论的影响。别的字数效率不是很高
That is second point we need to figureit out. Under the assumption is either being better, maybe the mosteffective way is just to remain the policy without any change, if not,or the other, which means being worse, further more, we need toreconsider it if what we do can revive the place and make the most ofit. The discreet stance bases on two stances. What is the reason thatcause it brings no more to us, will it still exist, were it to turninto a school? Hasty it maybe without digging more into inner reason.Second come from the new transform. Is it really better for us? 思路很好第一段，但是语言有严重问题。。比前两段还要严重。
Sometimes, we just can not only focuson the short term income, we need squeeze some room for future thatmeans, although we can not meet the red sheet at the end, what we gotat last is much more worthwhile than it, not even to measure it bymoney. From this point, i think we can subvert all the author plausibleevidence, which is so pale and feeble in front of further probe. red sheet是啥？这段有点不知所云。前两段之间联系不错，这段有些脱节。
At last, i want to say, to modify theconclusion, we need to put much more surveys in sight, and integrateall the possible factors that may affect that may affect the result.
文章缺点：语法的错误已经有点problematic了。当然作为中国人我能猜到你的意思。。
文章优点：第一第二个论述段落思路都不错，几个句子说的很到点子上。不像很多文章讲了一大堆废话居多。
建议：lz第一第二论述段（不算开头第一段）保留点睛句的基础上缩减，删掉第三论述段，后面再加三个论述段落，每个段落针对一个问题，不用很长。应该是很容易的，后面具体的购物中心，住宅，体育场，学校你还都没讨论。如果有兴趣这么写，写完后还贴在这里，保持语言风格不要大变，我会给erater改。
遇到的难题： 1 感觉写作文的时候，总是怕自己写跑题，同时担心没有抓到重点。
argument很难跑题吧？。。
2 还有就是在论点的表达上，感觉没有ISSUE自如，不知道怎么回事。
这个本来就比issue难。用精炼的话表述出作者的问题出现在哪，不是容易的事情。我觉得你做得已经不错了，或者说很有潜力。
3 最后就是对于结构的清晰度不知道怎样把握，是否和ISSUE有共同点。
如果作者自身写的就很混乱，那我们也没必要在段落之间很有结构。
====================================================================================
#14 by itsuper
In this letter, the arguer puts forward a idea that their townpurchases the land known as Scott Woods in Morganton and build a schoolthere. In order to make this method more acceptable , the author pointsout that rest of the land would probably be devoted to a athleticfields and a large majority of our children participate in sports andthus Scott Woods would continue to benefit their community as naturalparkland.However, the argument suffers several flaws ,which render itunconvincing.
To begin with, the author fails to provide clear evidence that there isa big chance that the rest of land will be devoted to athletic fields.Lacking such evidences. it is likely that the land will be used inother purpose. Perhaps, the land will be devoted to build a swimmingpool. Or perhaps this land will be used as a library. Furthermore, thearguer also fails to rule out the possibilities that the rest of theland would be builded as shopping centers or houses. (这个问题感觉像这样一笔带过没什么意义) Therefore, theassumption that substantial acreage would probably be used as athleticfields remains unconvincing.
Secondly, without clearly definition of natural parkland, it isimpossible to claim that athletic fields are natural parkland. If wedefine natural parkland as the land that was in a natural ,undevelopedstate, then the land developed could not be called as natural parklandand athletic fields could not be regarded as nature parkland. （这句放段首。）
Finally, supposing athletic fields is still natural parkland, it istoo hastily to assume that building school is the best use of the land.（这句本身很好，但是没有和前面写的关于athletic fields联系。毕竟造的主体是school而不是athletic field）The arguer do not show any other possible use of the land. Withoutcomparison with other methods, the conclusion of the best cannot bedrawed. Also ,the author fails to indicate a majority of theirchildren participate in sports. 这个应该算事实陈述不能就这么反驳。如果想讲这点可以提比如，玩体育的小孩是多，不过要建的体育场对他们喜欢玩的运动是否functional？当地体育馆真的紧缺还是已然饱和？云云
In sum, the letter is not so convincing as it stands. To bolster it ,the author must show there is a big change that the rest of the landwould be devoted to athletic fields. The arguer should also giveclearly definition of natural parkland and point out how beneficial theathletic fields would be to the residents. To better access the letter,I should also know the reaction of residents in Morganton about thissuggestion.
可能作为运动场地,也可能不,作者没有说出这种可能性的大小,且也没排除空地作购物中心的可能.
没有准确的关于自然园地的定义,运动场是否为自然园地仍能确定.
没有与其它方法比较,很难得出这是最好的使用方法
欲解决的问题:
开头的陈述作者思路是否太长,而不必要.
如果文章本身再出色一点可以考虑给erater改一次然后改成很短的开头结尾再改一次。
字数会成为机器评分的一个参考吗?
有影响，前提是字数比较有用。比如，多出来的字数多提到了一个错误，当然有用；多出来的字数在详述同一个问题而且效率不高，没啥用。
其实对有些题目/没弄太清楚哪些是作者的陈述哪里是假设,如这里说大部分的小孩会参加运动是事实还是假设的呢?对于事实假设应该怎样判断?
我觉得不算很难把。就这篇而言红字是事实，蓝字表明这些是他自己的argument。
Thefollowing appeared as a letter to the editor of a localnewspaper."Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep thepubliclyowned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural,undevelopedstate. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers orhouses werebuilt there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit ourcommunity as anatural parkland. But now that our town planningcommittee wants topurchase the land and build a school there, we shouldreconsider thisissue. If the land becomes a school site, no shoppingcenters or housescan be built there, and substantial acreage wouldprobably be devotedto athletic fields. There would be no better use ofland in ourcommunity than this, since a large majority of our childrenparticipatein sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit ourcommunity asnatural parkland."
=================================================================================================
#15 by pluka
The author contends that the construction of school will best benefitthe community by precluding shopping centers or houses and providinggathletic fields, also, Scott Woods will be preserved as naturalparkland. 总结得简练到位。His conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussed below.
The author confuses the natural parkland with the school. 可能讲athletic fields更准确，或者在提学校的影响的时候，至少不能忽略对于这个点作者主要想讲的是大部分土地做操场没有影响。He may deemthat as schools, unlike factories or companies, bring less pollutionand human influence to this region and therefore keep the woods“natural”. Yet though less significant the impact may be, it may stillbeyond the range to be considered negligible. The construction ofbuildings, the waste from dining halls, domitories and so forth, thedisturbing noise and activity of students, along with other factors,can lead to irreversible harm to the originally untainted state ofScott Woods. Besides, once the school had been constructed, that regionceased to be a public place where all citizens could enjoy. Perhaps,they would feel reluctant to disturb the normal routine of the schooland thus reduce the chance to visit there. For that, Scott Woods wouldfail to retain either the state of nature or the role of parkland.
Besides, given the large proportion of children in sports, 为什么要把这么个不是很有代表性的原因放在这段第一句？the schoolwill not necessarily hold a large athletic fields. The habit forexercise cited here is but the average situation, and we are notinformed whether students of that school are equally interested.Perhaps the heavy academic burden prohibit them from such divertion.Even students there are indeed longing for a playground, it is theschool president that makes the decision of construction. 这句话很有力，可以保留。不过不一定说是president决定，可以说it is not us to make the desicion of construction. Possibly, theschool deem other parameters such as laboratories and teachingbuildings more important and useful than athletic fields and thus doesnot plan to build the latter.
这个开头有点突兀。Again, the author neglects the demand and the attitude of othercitizens towards the construction. Though the school may receivesupports and praises from some students and parents, possibly morepeople will prefer the orginal parkland, or even a new shopping center.After all, the main beneficiary of the school may limit only to a smallfraction of people: the student, their families, or some advocates foreducation. Others, possibly, may feel depressed since they are deprivedof a nice place for picnic, hiking or other entertainments. It is toohasty and unwise for the author to conclude that the construction canwin the consent of all and bring benefits to all.
In sum, the author posits his contention simply on misleadingconceptional confusion and partial considerations. To reach a betterconclusion, he should capture a comprehensive picture on the both thepotential influence of school and people’s attitude towards it.Further, he should factor in the actual condition of Scott Woods andponder various factors cautiously.
遇到的问题可能比较传统和普遍：
1、因时间不够，开头部分可否简略——详细点说，可不可以把开头缩写成一句话，即起一个信号句的作用提示文章的开始？我原先的想法是这样，先写论证段，实在没时间了，开头就直接来一句“the conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussedbelow”。这样的写法没个性又没内容自然是会扣分的，但考虑到担心来不及充实主体，此种千篇一律的万灵药开头很省事省时间。于是担心的事情就是：此种万能开头对文章整体分数的影响到底多大？当难以在主题句中确切指出作者的逻辑谬误之处，此种模板式信号句是否可用？
我觉得你的方法可行。我当时所有的argument大概都这么写：The author's argument suffers lots of logic flaws which I will discuss one by one in the following.
当然，我作文分数也不高4.5.供你参考吧。
2、关于机器打分抓取主题句的问题。官方范文里面有些文章没有分段，有些文章开头段主题句貌似很难找，有些文章貌似都没有开头的总起段直接开始分BODY攻击，但是依然获得了高分；而版上曾经讨论过POOH前辈的考场阿狗，称其首段主题句不明确以至于没有被辨认出来可能大大拉低了她的分数，这直接引发了我的疑问——如果是机器阅卷，它怎么分辨主题句的？开头段、主题句，到底多重要？
good question.作文这个东西就算是真正的人来打分也会有很多非客观的东西，更不用说机器了。开头总起段落有没有跟你第一个问题是一个意思么？首段主题句和段首的具体句差别还是挺大的吧。我的感觉是不管你是否分段，主题句都可以存在而且很重要。The author confuses the natural parkland with the school. the author neglects the demand and the attitude of othercitizens towards the construction. 这两句在我看来都是很好的主题句，不管分段与否。
3、论证的发展问题。主要来自北美范文与官方范文的不同。北美的论证发展，它因和理由等，比较简略，感觉套话多而实际例证少。官方则相反。论证要到什么程度才够？它因举一个还是两个，是否要非常明确的挑明其影响（而不管可能带来的重复冗赘之类）？
你和我现在考虑的问题一样。我感觉与其对一个问题写了很多字数，效果还不好，不如多找几个点，写出点一针见血的话。
自己的这篇写得很传统很中规中矩吧，没用模板，希望不至于太僵化。虽然想尝试新风格，但是AW之期只剩十天，恐邯郸学步，于是就这样不改了吧。盼指教，尤其是总体感觉和论证说服力，谢谢！
建议，减少三个论证段落中间的举例以及你认为的累述，把多出来的时间再多写一个甚至两个段落，效果会好很多。如果有兴趣把这么改的文章贴出来，我会把这篇文章和你贴的另一篇文章都给erater改作为对比。
===========================================================================================
#18 by 123runfordream
The issue I see in this letter is that the writeragrees with the plan building a school in the Scott Woods, which bringsanother issue that whether it should build shopping centers or housesin Scott Woods or not 感觉表述不是很准。with considering about the essential question iswhether it could benefit the residents or not, while as the write saysnot.
句子有点过长了
The apparently reasons showed in the latter whythe residents did not agree with developing SW is that the undevelopedstate benefits them, however it was not provided any means. While thetown planning committee wants to purchase a school there, they show thesupports for the use of land for children would continue to benefit thecommunity. Thus make no much sense while we think it over. sorry，第一段语言表达可能还是有些问题。
First of all as mentioned above, how theundeveloped state of SW benefits the community was not explainedcompletely in the letter while we may recognize these that a naturalparkland is a wonderful place for people after work or during theholidays. Adults have a walk after suffers, jog in the mornings, whilechildren play games with friends. With lots of trees, people enjoy thefresh air there. For the leisure time, it does benefit people a lot.太长，而且作用不明显。And it is exactly the living style for people five years ago. 这个是自己的假设吧？Howeverit is different now since the technology has been developing so fastthat it changes people’s living pace, which everyone seems rush all thedays at any second. Most people would rather stay at home sleeping formore a while instead of lingering on the parks without companies. Theways they live today have happened to other different ones. But theretill have one common that they spend less time in the park even theywant but can’t. 这么多字数写了这个有点不值得。
Building shopping centers or houses, by contrast,is possible benefiting more for the requirement of people who have lesstime to waiting for a car spot far away places they live in, whichtaking the traffic jams out of accounts on the road they driving to.
Supposed that it is built shopping centers andmany houses there, people who move in the community can go down stairsonly for shopping, such convenience as it would provide would be widelyaccepted. And the spend of car oil, the time wasting on the waiting,even the better air quality compared to driving more it can brings, forthe residents, it is hardly to say there is not benefit.
Furthermore, the writer says it is not better useof the land to build a school site just for the majority of childrenparticipate in sports, 这句话把作者的意思说反了吧？which might be questioned. How many of childrenare there? What is the exactly meaning of majority supposed to standfor? And also how often those sports are held is beyond the concern.Thus, people should take into their consideration carefully rather thenmake a quick decision.
As suggestion in the letters, the writer rarelyprovides convincible reasons for the supports. With researching muchmore among the residents, concerning about the better development ofthe town, seeing how and how much the benefit would be produced; theplanning committee should re-plan the use of Scott Woods.
感觉这篇问题比较多，个人自己发挥的太多，没有围绕argument的材料来。
Questions:
1, sometimes I can not clear the exact idea theclaim says. Is it can be mentioned in the writing process? Or it isjust my problem?
这个问题我也有。只能假设作者是怎么想的了。
2, for the suggestion issue, the things we haveto do is just point out what the unreasoning the writer has provided,and give more aspects should be concerned about, or totally deny thesuggestion?
前者比较好一些。
=================================================================================================
#20 by qisaiman
The arguerclaims that even if the Scott woods is purchased and becomes a schoolsite, it can still benefit the community as a natural parkland andprovides the children with an athletic fields. The argument seemsplausible, yet it is flawed with several fallacies.
Firstly, theScott wood can no longer serve as a natural parkland if used as aschool site or athletic fields. 第一句讲反了吧？As a common sense, when one refers to anatural parkland, one actually means that the place preserves itsnatural states and anyone can travel to there at any time.Nevertheless, once a school was built there, it became a public sitewith definite purpose, which means one cannot visit it as he or shewishes （even if it's still natural parkland）except one can provide proper reason, since due to the safetyconsideration, school will only allow those who have appropriate reasonto enter the place.
In addition, the argument fails to show thatit is urgent to build a school. Consequently, it is open to doubt thatthe town planning committee's plan of building a school there cannotguarantee it will not be used as a site for other purpose, such asshopping center or houses, which obviously violate the initial hope ofthe community.
Even if anew school is necessary, the community should place carefulconsideration on the cost of destroying a parkland, which means manytrees need to be cut down and therefore damages the local ecosystem.Thus, the community should reconsider the claims.
In thefinal, the argument fails to show it is necessary to build a newschool, and why the site should be placed on the parkland other thananywhere else. To improve the argument, more information is needed tosupport the claims.
这个文章虽然短但还是有点意思，字数少覆盖的点不少。讲了四个点，除了第一个点之外别的都很简略的带过，不过文字效率还算高。如果每个点能再简练严谨一些,比如第一论述段的核心其实在于蓝字，别的大多可以删掉；第三段可以稍加强调和让步就算体育场还是跟公园没区别；然后可以再加一个段落多讲一个问题（甚至都不需要），300字4分都是很有可能的，性价比实在强于很多四五百字最后才3分的文章。
如果能做到这几个简单的修改，再把文章贴在这里，我会拿给erater改。
===============================================================================================
#21 by 番茄斗斗
In this letter, the author assumes that a construction of school inScott Woods will not deplete the peafulness in Morganton, by contrast,it benefits by getting rid of the possiblity of land's being used as abusiness area. Reasonable he claims, it suffers from flaws mentioned inthe following paragraph.
First, he blurs the idea of natural state by giving his own claims.Even though the survey is given in the letter, we are only informedthat natural state is a prefered by residents of Morganton, and merelypersured by the author's own idea. As he suggested, when one woods isaway from shopping center and houses, it can be described as naturaland stays still. However, the construction of school might not bepromising as he forsees. 这才出现了第一个半主题句。If residents determine a natural state to bequite and clean, the result of the construction between school andshopping center is similar and destorying, since both of them willbring about the prosperity and squeeze the only peacefulness. Ifresidents acquir the woods to be harmony and well connected with thecity, then school is a better option since it will highlight andproduce a bond between every single family. Without a further study,rushing into the a busy construction of one school will lead tonumberous complaints of residents as well as a waste of time and labor. 感觉这一段文字效率不高。
In addition, the idea of the benefit, which school might bring, suffersfrom some logic flaws in a long run. When the author conjures us a rosyfuture of Scott Woods, that when school is formed, residents are safefrom the shopping center and the students can exercise in the atheletefields built on the rest of the land, he neglects a common phenomenonin this current market, that prosperity attractes business, like theconstrucition of highway increases the price of house and leads to amutilpal industory. School cannot be the only exception. As animportant public place, school is highly populated; its success arousesthe population of the city as well. Once the school were well operated,business comes in return. And we can easily expect a growing businessgradually encroaching the once athelete field, leave the woods far awayfrom natural, but urban.
Furthermore, the author neglects the size of school and overly enlargesthat of atheletic field. School consists of various part, atheleticfield is only one part of it. Once the field is occupied as a schoolsite, the shrinked atheletic field cannot compensate for the lost area.What's more, when condering the security, school won't be open to thepubic. If so, then user of the once public land is limited to students,let alone the fun woods used to brought.
All in all, the conclusion of the author is based on the confusion ideaand inlogical reasoning. To reach the purpose, he should insteadconcentrate the result of the survey and grasp the common knowledge ofmarket.
1. 都说argu要从大错误开始写，机器打分时是不是也设定了逻辑错误的顺序？
我觉得关系不大
2.机器打分是如何鉴别论述的完善与否？我很好奇。。
有大量同主题人判分的文章作为数据库加各种复杂算法。。。我以前读过报告，现在erater改分跟任意一个人改分的吻合率和两个人之间给分吻合率是一样的。。
我感觉这篇文章是现在版上很多人argument的典型，
特点：四百多的字数，语言中等向上甚至较好；写三个（最多四）点；每个点字数不少不过效率偏低，没有一针见血的话；每段主题句出现很慢或者出现不明显，或者句子很长；给出的反例都不是能以点盖面的类型。
番茄斗斗别生气。。不过我感觉这篇文章要杯具，很可能是3分。
过会儿把我这篇文章单独贴出来让大家看看是否是现在主流的写法，然后直接送给erater改分。
=========================================================================================
#25 by aqyzwangyuan
Thearguer claims that building a school at the Scott Wood contiuelybenefit their comunity because 1) no shopping centers or houses can bebuilt there,2) children will have athletic fields. However, during theletter the arguer's assertion suffers from two main fallacies and doesnot give out enough evidence to prove this assertion.
First, thearguer believe that the land can benefit the comunity if a school isbuilt there. To support this reasoning, he uses their thinking fiveyears ago. However, in my eyes, his excuse used five years ago is notconvincing in this situation. Without building shhopping centers orhouses, it did help prevent the natural state of the Scott Wood, butnow, building a school also means build up some man-made objects, whichare the necessary facilities for research and education. Both these twoprogress destory the origin state of a natural, undeveloped woods,because there must be many plants being cut down or, at least, move toother place. Based on this possible prediction, this reason forbuilding a school is not unwarranted.
Second, the arguer believes that substaintial land would be athleticfields and it is good for the comunity for children's interest insports. Nevertheless, it is not certain that the remain land afterbuilding school can be used for athletic fields. Maybe the condition ofthat land is not proper for sports so that the administration wouldpurchase it and build houses there. And it is not exclusive betweenschools and houses or stores. Thus, the function of a natural parklandcan not be guaranteed.
To the conclusion, the arguer's assertion does not effectively supporthis decision. In order to make others convinced about the contiunebenefit of the Scott Wood after building a school there, arguer shouldgive out the environment protection which maintain the benefit ofnatural state of the woods, the condition of the land and the wholeproject about the surrounding of the school to make his assertion moreconvincing.
这篇就不仔细讲了，看了看大概是番茄斗斗文章的简略版，没有他的典型。请到时候看番茄改出来的文章以及和别的我想讲的文章的对比吧。
谢谢支持：）
==============================================================================================
#26 by 海王泪
首先感谢海王泪，因为你是本楼目前为止唯一一个完全理解我意图的回帖-__________________-
虽然你的问题我觉得不够典型，而且我觉得很可能分数上没有区别，但是作为对于仔细主贴的回报，你的这两篇我都会给erater改。
The letter to the local paper supports Morgantonto build a school with athletic fields at natural, undeveloped ScottWoods. As far as I am concerned, the suggestion would not work well aswhat the author thinks if he fail to notice what issue the locals really consider about.
The author first points out "if the land becomes a school site, noshopping centers or houses can be built there." It is true that localshave objected to the building of malls or domicile in Scott Woods, butwhat they really care is not what to buildbut how to keep. That is,Morganton need a natural, undeveloped landscape. The author falselytreats locals as those who were not satisfied with the former planabout how to use the land, and thus think they have waited for a newone to develop Scott Wood. （点很好，不过可以说的更简短，更提前）Unfortunately,if they had not cared about an undeveloped space, they would haveembraced more commerce or living area before the current plan. In fact, there is a story about inhabitants who favors their original beauty. A new school cannot avoid destroying it. 晦涩绕口，有点不知所云
The current plan not only fails to provide natural scenery but alsobenefits much smaller population than before. Residents perhaps justwant to keep Scott Woods as commonage, shared by anyone in the town.When locals could not bear shopping centers, which are enjoyed by somemerchandisers and consumers, or houses, which owned by certainfamilies, how could they be willing to vote for a school available toonly several hundred of boys and girls? If not having several troubling kids, it is very possible that residents would argue strongly against a new school. Theyperhaps are reluctant to see welfare limited to only “a large majorityof children” which contributes a small percentage to overallpopulations in Morganton.
Suppose town citizen reconsider the issue, thinking more about their kids, the use of land as athletic fields may not be worth if it fail to improve the quality of children’s lives.It is the purpose of athletic fields to provide area for sports likerunning, jumping, playing football and so on. Ironically, children, if not as mature as those in college,can also run, jump and play football at an open space of naturalparkland. They can even have more fun when variety of landform innatural park, if really undeveloped, produces moreactivity: a lake for swimming, trees for climbing, or maybe a hill forhiking. Kids could enjoy much more in a natural park than that in anathletic field if still fixed by traditional circumference.
By comparing with a natural park, constructing a new school cannot makethe best use of this land as what the author concludes. They aredifferent in functions; they are different in beneficial population.Even worse, to children, the substantial acreage devoted to athleticfields may not work as well as being an original natural park.Therefore, what the author suggests in the letter probably is notsuitable to the Morganton, where has located a unique Scott Wood if irreversible after development.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
我是没有If的分隔线 (或改写、或删除)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Theletter to the local paper supports Morganton to build a school withathletic fields at natural, undeveloped Scott Woods. As far as I amconcerned, the suggestion may not work well because the author fails to notice what issue the locals really consider about.
The author first points out "if the land becomes a school site, noshopping centers or houses can be built there." It is true that localshave objected to the building of malls or domicile in Scott Woods, butwhat they really care is not what to build but how to keep. That is,Morganton need a natural, undeveloped landscape. The author falselytreats locals as those who were not satisfied with the former planabout how to use the land, and thus think they have waited for a newone to develop Scott Wood. Unfortunately, residents refused developing plan not for an abnegation of more commerce or more living area. In fact, there is a story about inhabitants who favors their original beauty.A new school cannot avoid destroying it.
The current plan not only fails to provide natural scenery but alsobenefits much smaller population than before. Residents perhaps justwant to keep Scott Woods as commonage, shared by anyone in the town.When locals could not bear shopping centers, which are enjoyed by somemerchandisers and consumers, or houses, which owned by certainfamilies, how could they be willing to vote for a school available toonly several hundred of boys and girls?Not every family has several troubling kids for sending to school；mostof the residents in Morganton may not agree with a new school. Theyperhaps are reluctant to see welfare limited to only “a large majorityof children” which contributes a small percentage to overallpopulations in Morganton.
Suppose town citizen reconsider the issue, thinking more about their kids, the use of land as athletic fields may fail to improve the quality of children’s livesdue to specific local conditions. It is the purpose of athletic fieldsto provide area for sports like running, jumping, playing football andso on. Ironically, children can also run, jump and play football at anopen space of natural parkland. They can even have more fun whenvariety of landform in undeveloped natural parkproduces more activity: a lake for swimming, trees for climbing, ormaybe a hill for hiking. Kids could enjoy much more in a natural parkthan that in an athletic field fixed by traditional circumference.
By comparing with a natural park, constructing a new school cannot makethe best use of this land as what the author concludes. They aredifferent in functions; they are different in beneficial population.Even worse, to children, the substantial acreage devoted to athleticfields may not work as well as being an original natural park.Therefore, what the author suggests in the letter probably is notsuitable to the Morganton, where has located a unique, irreversible Scott Wood.
感觉和番茄斗斗的文章有些类似，虽然没那么典型。实在没空再细看了，还有活要做。也拿去改了。再次感谢，呵呵。
待用 前排占座 本帖最后由 misir 于 2010-2-22 02:31 编辑
我先占着。。回写
-----------------------------
刚刚出炉：
WORDS: 484
TIME: 00:45
The conclusion that they should built athletic fields if the land becomes a school site seems obvious at first glance, however, it cannot stand up to scrutiny, for several reasons I will discuss below.
To begin with, the author gains the conclusion that they should build no shopping centers or houses but develop Scott Woods to athletic fields basing on tenuous evidence that most of the children will participate in sports. Although, the health condition of the children, the next generation who will be the contributors of the nation, is of importance to the society, the author cannot assert that the best use of the land is to be athletic fields. There is no evidence to show that in the newly built school, the playground or the gymnasium is not large enough or cannot meet the students’ need. It is likely that the school itself emphasis the physical condition of its students, so it will spend lots of money to built a modernization gymnasium. Thus, the athletic fields outside the school will be of no use at all. If the author cannot provide more information about the plan of the school, the conclusion is not persuasive.
In addition, the author makes the athletic fields equal to the natural parkland, which is not reasonable at all. It is commonplace that athletic fields contain various kinds, such as playgrounds,
swimming pools, skating rinks, tennis courts and so on. These all need to move the original plants away and rebuilt the place again. So the environment is likely to be damaged, and a new ecosystem may appear. Therefore, Scott Woods may not be natural parkland as before. To make the assertion reasonable, the author should provide more detailed information about the athletic fields.
Finally, the author ignores other factors while wrongly jumps to the conclusion that the shopping centers and houses should not appear. If the school is to be built, then the students are the main group of consumers. They need to purchase books, stationery, and so forth. And their homes should not be far away, for it is not wise to go to the school while wasting a lot of time on vehicles. So the houses near the school are a good choice to catch the parents’ attention, and the shopping center will make it more attractive. So, considering the traffic situation and the energy-saving issue, the author makes an unwise claim. And to make the claim wiser, the author should provide more information about the traffic conditions and the energy problem facing of the town and strike a balance between them.
问题主要是：
1.在BODY的段尾，是否可以跟提意见的话？
2.开头是否可以不提出作者的逻辑错误，而仅仅是指出他的错误结论？
3.如果有一些逻辑错误来不及在文中提及，是否会影响文章的得分？
----------------------------------------------------------------
希望能被选上。。。:) 本帖最后由 xiemeng2370 于 2010-2-23 14:24 编辑
这么好的事情~一定要参与的~不过我就5天了~也不知道还赶不赶的上了~
PS：哎~我这好记性啊~当天就写完了~忘了回来贴了。。。也不知道还赶得上不~不过我的poor grammar实在是。。。望楼主体谅
Topic:
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
WORDS: 437
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-2-20 13:28:30
提纲：主一：建学校肯定破坏自然环境了
主二：不建学校不一定就会建别的
主三：不一定给社区带来利益
问题：1首段只点明文章结论，并说出文章站不住，不restate可不可以
2 论述段结尾不总结可不可以
3 论述段没有明显的逻辑链可不可以，就是说分别论述三个分散的错误，彼此之间没有明显的交错关系
注：原文：首段restate，主三段按攻击前提—论据—结论进行，段末总结
变量：首段删去restate，主三段无明显逻辑链，段末未总结
This letter concludes that residents in Morganton are supposed to sell their land to committee and Scott Woods would continue to benefit their community as natural parkland, even though it becomes a school site. To support this argument, the author cites that so long as their fields devote to a school, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and most of acreage would become athletic fields. (变量：这句话删掉) However, this argument suffers a series of logical problems and critical flaws, and therefore it is wholly unpersuasive.
Fundamentally, it is nowhere more illegitimate than the author’s premise that Scott Woods would continue to as natural parkland even if it would become a school. (变量：这句话改为To begin with, it is nowhere more illegitimate than Scott Woods would continue to as natural parkland even if it would become a school.) Common sense informs me that the word "nature" means undeveloped and unused at all. As we are all aware, a school undoubtedly would destruct the land, no matter how it may beautiful, clean and environment-friendly. Moreover, perhaps the school has no intention to build athletic fields but desire to build more academic areas as a branch school. For that matter, such school will not bring benefits to their environment. Thus, the author’s premise is even problematic, not to mention its following argument. (变量：这句话删掉)
Moreover, the author's proof that no shopping centers or houses can be built there if it becomes a school site is more ridiculous. (变量：这句话改为On the other perspective, the author's assumption that no shopping centers or houses can be built there if it becomes a school site is also ridiculous.) Firstly, it is possible that the school will sell a fraction of the place to shop in order to afford the money of school’s operation or they build a dorm for their students. Thus, these two possibilities render the author's assumption unreasonable. Secondly, the author fails to demonstrate that without selling their land, it would build shopping centers or houses. After all, as arguer own said, the residents desire to maintain their lands as natural parkland. Therefore, it is highly possible that the land will continue to undeveloped, even though without building a school site at there. In short, this weak proof largely undermines the author’s argument. (变量：这句话删掉)
Finally, the author's conclusion that Scott Woods would continue to benefit their community is unreasonable either. (变量：这句话改为Finally, the claim that Scott Woods would continue to benefit their community is unreasonable either.) Even assuming that the school could keep their land natural, it is still no evidence to substantiate that their children will participate in sports. First, the condition of their residents is uncharted. If the majority of them are elder who prefer to live in a peaceful place, the school more or less would bring chaos for their community and undermine their benefits. Secondly, the author's hypothesis that the residents' children would participate in sports is also unclear. Admittedly, this behavior is too subjective to manipulate by the author's individual will. As a result, only based on the author’s contention hardly concludes the ultimate recommendation that they are obligated to sell the land and it would continue to benefit their community. (变量：这句话删掉)
In conclusion, this argument cannot be taken seriously as it stands. To better evaluate it, the author needs to support that the school would continue their land as natural parkland and bring what benefits to their community, such as financial revenue and the chance of education. Moreover, the author is obligated to rule out that their land will keep undeveloped without building a school site, or at least provide that building a school is the most appropriate avenue to maintain their land still as natural parkland. 本帖最后由 tequilawine 于 2010-2-20 21:38 编辑
In our author's opinion, the utilization of this land which means there will be a school will still make it serve us well in future. Except the less reasoning, we still can find several causal flaws in this arbitrary decision.
In the first place, take a look at the beginning of the passage, what we can know is just about the fact that five years ago, we made a decision to leave the land as an underdeveloped place in order to benefit ourselves, but what we can not conclude is that whether we really get the interest from the action or not. The result of it still being a puzzle for us, i think it's a little bit too early to argue about the further action, because we know no matter it comes out better or worse, yet, it will can not support the conclusion deriving from itself.
That is second point we need to figure it out. Under the assumption is either being better, maybe the most effective way is just to remain the policy without any change, if not, or the other, which means being worse, further more, we need to reconsider it if what we do can revive the place and make the most of it. The discreet stance bases on two stances. What is the reason that cause it brings no more to us, will it still exist, were it to turn into a school? Hasty it maybe without digging more into inner reason. Second come from the new transform. Is it really better for us?
Sometimes, we just can not only focus on the short term income, we need squeeze some room for future that means, although we can not meet the red sheet at the end, what we got at last is much more worthwhile than it, not even to measure it by money. From this point, i think we can subvert all the author plausible evidence, which is so pale and feeble in front of further probe.
At last, i want to say, to modify the conclusion, we need to put much more surveys in sight, and integrate all the possible factors that may affect that may affect the result.
遇到的难题： 1 感觉写作文的时候，总是怕自己写跑题，同时担心没有抓到重点。
2 还有就是在论点的表达上，感觉没有ISSUE自如，不知道怎么回事。
3 最后就是对于结构的清晰度不知道怎样把握，是否和ISSUE有共同点。
占座哇 首页留名~~ 本帖最后由 海王泪 于 2010-2-20 13:58 编辑
困惑1：
提他因、提反例时能Common Sense当然最好
但如果只是一种可能性，是否需要进一步说这种可能性有多大？
换句话说，进一步强化自己提出可能性以达到质疑材料的作用。
E.G.
School的athletic fieldsScott能否被充分使用是一个问题《-天气不好云云，场地无法被充分利用（反例）《-Scott Woods听上去像林地，降雨量较多（反例可能性）
变量是加了粗体的部分，是否进一步论述他因或反例存在的可能性有助于提高分数。 本帖最后由 kulewy531 于 2010-2-24 12:54 编辑
In the argument, the writer concludes that using the land in Scott Wood is the best choice, for it would not only preserve the land serving as a natural park but also create athletic fields for children. However, his assumptions are unwarranted and his reasoning is not suffice to substantiate the conclusion,
To support the opinion that natural parkland is necessary for the residents, he cites the results of a vote five years ago. But this piece of evidence is relevant to support the opinion under the assumption that the residents’ choice remained unchanged within these years. And the arguer fails to invalidate this assumption by specifics and reasoning.
The assertion that if a school is build up, on shopping centers and houses will be built there is not compelling. In fact, once the school is build, the students would be potential consumers. And the merchants, who are fully aware of this, would pose their houses and shopping centers near the school to provide service for the students.
The allegation that the school would utilize the land for athletic fields is also dubious. For the school, the main purpose is not to serve the public but to promote the education of its students. In the light of this view, there are other alternatives such as build laboratory and gymnasium.
The advantage of the athletic field is also open to doubt. The arguer quotes the evidence that the majority of children participate in sports to demonstrate the importance of athletic fields. And the assumption the children would participate in sports here. However, the arguer fails to consider the possibility that the children living in Scott Woods are different from other children in the city and don’t like sports. And other children living far from Scott Woods are not willing to take journey to go there.
Even if the school chooses to use the land for athletic fields and no shopping centers and houses are built here, preservation of the function of the land as natural parks is not ensured. For a natural parkland, its value lies in provide a serene place for every citizen. However, if there build a school, the serene would possibly be disturbed by the sports competition of the students.
In short, the writer’s reasoning is not a credible one. In order to substantiate his conclusion, he should take a more thorough investigation on the issue provide more relevant evidence.
问题：
1.攻击时用常识或例子来反证arguer的观点是否有助于分数的提高。
2.在时间不够时，每段文字是直接指出问题，点到即可，还是针对重点错误多展开分析。
对比文章下午写！
占座~ 本帖最后由 itsuper 于 2010-2-22 16:40 编辑
字数371 时间 1小时
In this letter, the arguer puts forward a idea that their town purchases the land known as Scott Woods in Morganton and build a school there. In order to make this method more acceptable , the author points out that rest of the land would probably be devoted to a athletic fields and a large majority of our children participate in sports and thus Scott Woods would continue to benefit their community as natural parkland.However, the argument suffers several flaws ,which render it unconvincing.
To begin with, the author fails to provide clear evidence that there is a big chance that the rest of land will be devoted to athletic fields. Lacking such evidences. it is likely that the land will be used in other purpose. Perhaps, the land will be devoted to build a swimming pool. Or perhaps this land will be used as a library. Furthermore, the arguer also fails to rule out the possibilities that the rest of the land would be builded as shopping centers or houses. Therefore, the assumption that substantial acreage would probably be used as athletic fields remains unconvincing.
Secondly, without clearly definition of natural parkland, it is impossible to claim that athletic fields are natural parkland. If we define natural parkland as the land that was in a natural ,undeveloped state, then the land developed could not be called as natural parkland and athletic fields could not be regarded as nature parkland.
Finally, supposing athletic fields is still natural parkland, it is too hastily to assume that building school is the best use of the land. The arguer do not show any other possible use of the land. Without comparison with other methods, the conclusion of the best cannot be drawed. Also ,the author fails to indicate a majority of their children participate in sports.
In sum, the letter is not so convincing as it stands. To bolster it , the author must show there is a big change that the rest of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The arguer should also give clearly definition of natural parkland and point out how beneficial the athletic fields would be to the residents. To better access the letter, I should also know the reaction of residents in Morganton about this suggestion.
可能作为运动场地,也可能不,作者没有说出这种可能性的大小,且也没排除空地作购物中心的可能.
没有准确的关于自然园地的定义,运动场是否为自然园地仍能确定.
没有与其它方法比较,很难得出这是最好的使用方法
欲解决的问题:
开头的陈述作者思路是否太长,而不必要.
字数会成为机器评分的一个参考吗?
其实对有些题目/没弄太清楚哪些是作者的陈述哪里是假设,如这里说大部分的小孩会参加运动是事实还是假设的呢?对于事实假设应该怎样判断? 本帖最后由 pluka 于 2010-2-25 20:17 编辑
交作业~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Topic: Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Thefollowing appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper."Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publiclyowned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undevelopedstate. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses werebuilt there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as anatural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants topurchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider thisissue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or housescan be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devotedto athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in ourcommunity than this, since a large majority of our children participatein sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community asnatural parkland."
15.24-15.57 33分钟 457字
The author contends that the construction of school will best benefit the community by precluding shopping centers or houses and providingg athletic fields, also, Scott Woods will be preserved as natural parkland. His conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussed below.
The author confuses the natural parkland with the school. He may deem that as schools, unlike factories or companies, bring less pollution and human influence to this region and therefore keep the woods “natural”. Yet though less significant the impact may be, it may still beyond the range to be considered negligible. The construction of buildings, the waste from dining halls, domitories and so forth, the disturbing noise and activity of students, along with other factors, can lead to irreversible harm to the originally untainted state of Scott Woods. Besides, once the school had been constructed, that region ceased to be a public place where all citizens could enjoy. Perhaps, they would feel reluctant to disturb the normal routine of the school and thus reduce the chance to visit there. For that, Scott Woods would fail to retain either the state of nature or the role of parkland.
Besides, given the large proportion of children in sports, the school will not necessarily hold a large athletic fields. The habit for exercise cited here is but the average situation, and we are not informed whether students of that school are equally interested. Perhaps the heavy academic burden prohibit them from such divertion. Even students there are indeed longing for a playground, it is the school president that makes the decision of construction. Possibly, the school deem other parameters such as laboratories and teaching buildings more important and useful than athletic fields and thus does not plan to build the latter.
Again, the author neglects the demand and the attitude of other citizens towards the construction. Though the school may receive supports and praises from some students and parents, possibly more people will prefer the orginal parkland, or even a new shopping center. After all, the main beneficiary of the school may limit only to a small fraction of people: the student, their families, or some advocates for education. Others, possibly, may feel depressed since they are deprived of a nice place for picnic, hiking or other entertainments. It is too hasty and unwise for the author to conclude that the construction can win the consent of all and bring benefits to all.
In sum, the author posits his contention simply on misleading conceptional confusion and partial considerations. To reach a better conclusion, he should capture a comprehensive picture on the both the potential influence of school and people’s attitude towards it. Further, he should factor in the actual condition of Scott Woods and ponder various factors cautiously.
遇到的问题可能比较传统和普遍：
1、因时间不够，开头部分可否简略——详细点说，可不可以把开头缩写成一句话，即起一个信号句的作用提示文章的开始？我原先的想法是这样，先写论证段，实在没时间了，开头就直接来一句“the conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussed below”。这样的写法没个性又没内容自然是会扣分的，但考虑到担心来不及充实主体，此种千篇一律的万灵药开头很省事省时间。于是担心的事情就是：此种万能开头对文章整体分数的影响到底多大？当难以在主题句中确切指出作者的逻辑谬误之处，此种模板式信号句是否可用？
2、关于机器打分抓取主题句的问题。官方范文里面有些文章没有分段，有些文章开头段主题句貌似很难找，有些文章貌似都没有开头的总起段直接开始分BODY攻击，但是依然获得了高分；而版上曾经讨论过POOH前辈的考场阿狗，称其首段主题句不明确以至于没有被辨认出来可能大大拉低了她的分数，这直接引发了我的疑问——如果是机器阅卷，它怎么分辨主题句的？开头段、主题句，到底多重要？
3、论证的发展问题。主要来自北美范文与官方范文的不同。北美的论证发展，它因和理由等，比较简略，感觉套话多而实际例证少。官方则相反。论证要到什么程度才够？它因举一个还是两个，是否要非常明确的挑明其影响（而不管可能带来的重复冗赘之类）？
自己的这篇写得很传统很中规中矩吧，没用模板，希望不至于太僵化。虽然想尝试新风格，但是AW之期只剩十天，恐邯郸学步，于是就这样不改了吧。盼指教，尤其是总体感觉和论证说服力，谢谢！
=========================================================
对比~~~~~~~~~
The author contends that the construction of school will best benefit the community by precluding shopping centers or houses and providing athletic fields, also, Scott Woods will be preserved as natural parkland. His conclusion suffers from several flaws as discussed below.
The author confuses the natural parkland with the school. Though the school may result in less human influence, including environmental pollutions and risks to nearby wildlives, its impact may still be too much for the woods to maintain its original integrity and keep the state of nature—even in the form of athletic fields. Besides, once occupied by the school, that region cease to be a public place where all citizens could enjoy. Perhaps, they would feel reluctant to disturb the normal routine of the school and thus reduce the chance to visit there. For that, Scott Woods would fail to retain either the state of nature or the role of parkland.
Besides, the author mistakenly assumes that the construction of school will preclude shops and houses. No evidence is given to substantiate it. In fact, things may go just the opposite. According to the common sense, the school may spur the development nearby, facilitate economic activities, and introduce shops and houses to cater for the needs of students and faculties. Thus irrational and indefensible is the author’s assertion.
Another assumption is that the school will boast large athletic fields that benefit the majority of young sports lovers in the community. However, hardly can he guarantee such constructions. Citing only the average situation for exercising, the author fails to ensure that students of that school are equally sporting. Perhaps heavy academic burdens prohibit them from such divertion. Even they are indeed longing for a playground, it is the school, rather than students, that makes the decision of construction. Without actual informations and plans of the school, the author falls short of supporting the assumption firmly.
Even assuming the athletic gounds is constructed, no proof is offered to ensure that “a large majority of our children” will gain benefits. He tells not whether the “a large majority” are willing to sport there or whether the school permits children outside to use the fields. Either of the question must be considered before he lauds the contribution of the athletic fields.
Further, the author neglects the demand and the attitude of other citizens towards the construction. Since the main beneficiary of the school may limit only to a small fraction of people, such as the student, their families, or some advocates for education, more residents may feel unsatisfied and depressed for the lost of the original parkland or the potential shopping malls. It is too hasty for the author to conclude that the construction will win the congruous consent and please all residents.
In sum, the author posits his contention simply on misleadingconceptional confusion and partial considerations. To reach a better conclusion, he should capture a comprehensive picture on the both thepotential influence of school and people’s attitude towards it. Further, he should factor in the actual condition of Scott Woods andponder various factors cautiously.
黄色的是新添的两端。其余段落改了一些，尽量简洁，但自觉必要的一些它因和可能性没有省。
513字（修改耳，没限时重写= =） 撒花。。严重支持~