hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 08:14:35
from xiaowenzi118
总觉得在段首加一点连接词会好一点,不然第二段感觉太突兀了。不知道是不是受了孙远的影响。
thank u very much.
找到关于连接词的帖子!大家分享!
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=80985&fpage=1&highlight=%C1%AC%BD%D3%B4%CA
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 08:52:17
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=134092&fpage=1&highlight=%B7%B6%CE%C4
大家看一下imong对argument开头的论述,一定会大受启发!
大家以后要注意了!
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 09:06:44
by imong
The argument states that anyone who is looking for a quality education should choose The Universtiy of Claria based on the instructors they have to offer. The argument assumes that students can learn better from faculty members who are internationally renowned and who have been invited to universities in other countries to teach. The proof of their argument rests on the fact that two recent graduates have been candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics, and that 75 percent of their graduates find employment upon graduation.
这种开头似乎看上去很面熟（似乎n多人都这样写），看看评语怎么说的：
Comment:
While the first paragraph of this adequate response the argument, the remainder of the essay identifies and analyzes several significant flaws in the argument. g p Q ]后半句不看，我觉得从while和merely两个词能够看出来评判的语气和态度。
by imong
Scott woods 6
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.
说实在的人家比我们更会玩儿，索性开头就开了3段，看看评语：
Comment: This outstanding response begins somewhat ; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.
论证精彩因而得到6分是后面的事情（当然，第三个段落基本上也能算作开始进入argue的状态），单独分析前面两段内容的话，人家对这种summary的评判叫做hesitantly，“do not immediately engage the argument”。如果把immediately给去掉就更明显了：
这样想来，也难怪pp3说明文件里面有这样的文字了：
[Do not spend a lot of time summarizing the argument unless you think it will effectively develop your critique. Readers know which Argument topic you were assigned.]Unless you think it will effectively develop your critique，可是目前恐怕还没发现哪篇文章因为写了summary从而effectively develop了critique，谁是因谁是果不言自明，这篇六分文章就是最好的例证：上面那句commentary后面紧接着的是However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail. 在看到后半句夸奖文章对argument的分析的同时想想人家为什么在前面来了一个however，我想这个态度的取向已经是再明显不过了。
因此，我认为，开头画上一个段落4到6句话来summarize基本上没有积极的效果，还不如省省力气好好组织深入后面的内容，这种summary性质的文字撑死了一两句话。这一点参见上面举过的claria的6分和5分的例子，也参见这个例子：
Forestville 6
The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.
甚至更过分的：Silver Screen 5
The advertising director of Silver Screen should lose his job. It is clear that his analysis of the decrease in attendance in the past year was incomplete.
当然，可别以为来一句某某人必须lose his job就万事大吉了，看看commentary：This strong essay begins with an attack on the advertising director of Silver Screen but quickly shifts to identifying major flaws in the argument. 人家重点在后头呢：quickly shifts to identifying flaws in the argument.
在这里稍微总结一下：
1.分析了数个Argument的commentary之后我认为对题目的summary被认可的程度相当低，尤其是claria4和scott woods6。
2.不管是silver screen 5还是scott woods 6，两个极端，人家commentary的重心都在identifying flaws in the argument / target on central flaws… 花那么大力气写一个垃圾开头没什么意义
3.当然了，如果习惯于写summary作为开头的话，从scott woods 6 得到的启示则是这个东西不会给你造成多少负面影响，但同时基本上没有积极意义。也因此我在第二点里面称之为垃圾。
而下面要说到的是更加重要的一点：再回过头来看看pooh的开头
In this argument, the author alleges that the best use of Scott Woods is to build a school there , thus a large majority of children could participate in sports at the same time Scotte Woods could continue to benefit the community as a natural parkland. At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer examination discloses that it is based on faulty reasoning which consequently detracts the validityf from the conclusion.
我想很多人都可能会奇怪为什么被判没有thesis？那从at the first glance开始写的东西算什么？？这个就是下面要讨论的另一个重点问题：先看看这个例子
Forestville 4
从里面摘出来了两个句子：
1.A logical path is followed throughout the paragraph and the conclusion is expected.
2. If the two missing pieces of information had been presented and were in the author's favor, then the conclusion that the author made would have been much more sound than it currently is
而commentary里面恰好有关于这两个句子的评判：
The first third and last third of the essay are relatively insubstantial, consisting mainly of general summary statements (e.g., "A logical path . . . conclusion is expected" and "If the two . . . more sound than it currently is"). The real heart of the critique consists of minimal development of the two points mentioned above.
，. 这就是给出的评语。不难想象这句话也会收到同样的待遇：At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer examination discloses that it is based on faulty reasoning which consequently detracts the validityf from the conclusion.
很遗憾的是我没能在官方给出的Argument范文commentary中找出更多的例如上面这样的支持信息，因而我否认这种general statement的效力的企图难以从范文中得到直接有力的支持。尽管如此，我仍然提出这样的观点：general statement基本上也是垃圾。我以下面两个现象作为论据：1.官方范文里面，从1到6，尤其是从4到6，general statement基本上比较罕见。偶尔个别有在开头段落闪现一下仅仅作为introductory material，而除了上面这个被批判的例子以外根本就没有过general statement作为TS或者准TS来引导整个一个段落/意群的。这和我们动辄通篇First, this argument is … by a fallacious comparison / secondly… based on a false analogy / third hasty generalization/ a careful examination will reveal how groundless it is… 这样的写法大不相同。从模仿范文的角度出发我认为应当重新慎重考虑。毕竟：如果TS是First, this argument is based on a false analogy，天晓得这段打算说什么。
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 09:09:12
大家注意上面了!!!:lol:lol:lol:confused:
看完后我简直吓了一跳,还一直以为偶的开头模板准备的很好,现在看都是垃圾了!
是该简洁明了!
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 10:41:12
Ets范文:
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products either to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.
The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
可以看出,各段首句直接了当,很少general statement.对ets考官来说,越是赤裸他们越高兴,因为这样可以迅速定位,找到采分点!:lol:lol
^_^个人见解!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills. The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic's fallacious reasoning could ".inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
-- that preventive and protective gear are not the same
-- that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because
they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
-- that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the
injuries
-- that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficialThe discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
根据pp3中的说明:
Do not spend a lot of time summarizing the argument unless you think it will effectively develop your critique. Readers know which Argument topic you were assigned. Unless you think it will effectively develop your critique
为了便于对比就先拿我的一篇argument的开头开刀吧!
In this argument, the author concludes that the Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin. The foundation for this conclusion is that the respondents washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess after which they reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. While this argument has some merit, there are some assumptions that are open to question.
红色的部分完全是在重述原文,没有一点价值也就是pp3中指出的spend a lot of time to summarize the argument.而且后面的is open to question也是套话,简直是一堆垃圾! 我看了许多新gter的argument开头,和我的差不多,基本上是照着模板来写的!和范文不知差了有多少!
范文中的开头基本上符合pp3中的后半句话: Unless you think it will effectively develop your critique. 把argument中的内容和自己对其的分析结合了起来!而不是脱节----先复述题目,后面来一句although it has some merit,………
不过ets对此的评价不是很高. 但一篇文章总不能连头都没有.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic's fallacious reasoning could ".inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws.
因此,我对开头写法的观点是: 用近乎极限简短的语句将argument中的内容和自己的分析结合起来. 比如我把自己的开头改为:
According insufficient evidence like that the respondents applied Luxess after washing their faces and reported improvement of facial conditions, the author concludes that the Luxess is truly effective. However, his/her conclusion is unconvincing after closer examination.(感觉还是不够简洁,那位大侠帮一下忙^_^)
:lol:lol:lol:handshake:victory:
[ Last edited by hustzwj on 2005-7-25 at 10:48 ]
zehua
发表于 2005-7-25 11:03:48
今日作业：
ISSUE7： https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305667
ISSUE73： https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305603
zehua
发表于 2005-7-25 11:16:12
Originally posted by 翦瞳 at 2005-7-24 22:02
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305483
今天还要找个人批才行！
收到。下午看看。:lol
zehua
发表于 2005-7-25 11:19:50
目前未改，也没有人正在改的文章：
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305013
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=304720
ISSUE7： https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305667
ISSUE73： https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305603
zehua
发表于 2005-7-25 11:20:36
Originally posted by xiaowenzi118 at 2005-7-25 11:17
可惜今天写完了一篇才看到你发的对argument开头的探讨呀。确实，最近在限时写呢。虽然时间太紧，几乎没有时间去构思，只能用模板，但总感觉模板式的开头很耗时间，因为要把论据找出来，大概要花个5分钟吧。不过在 ...
好。你这篇交给我来改。:lol
xiaowenzi118
发表于 2005-7-25 12:18:30
我的Issue 144,艺术类,全盘否定,会不会太极端呢?
哪位好心人帮忙看看呀,真怕把Issue写成Argument呀
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305714&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D101
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 14:02:59
偶来了!有点迟了!:p
偶下午来改zehua的issue73和xiaowenzi的'全否'的那篇!
这是偶得,大家看得时候也注重一下主题内容!
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=305752
thank U!!:lol
Gladysry
发表于 2005-7-25 14:43:06
我脆弱的电脑昨天崩溃了，被我这个脑盲摧残了很久之后刚刚恢复正常。
ps:帮别人改是可以的，但是我自己大约并不能保证每天都有新作。
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 16:35:12
from zehua
ARGUE不就是八股么！要力争6分啊!
建议看看ets的范文!
:O:O:O:O
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 16:47:04
by 酸奶
issue我准备了一个月吧，然后就进入argument的部分了。Argument看上去比issue简单很多，实际上想写的很好也不容易。先写的提纲，看的是猴哥的那本参考资料，它上面的错误都写的很详细。我只看英文的题目，不看题目的翻译。自己先找出几个错误，再看猴哥。这样的话，找到的错误就更多，我自己没想到的但是书上写了的我印象更深刻。所有的题目都要看一遍。而且argu不象issue那样费时间和大脑，象我这样慢吞吞的家伙一个晚自习也能写20个提纲。第二步，我把最常见的错误分了类，采样的大小和代表性，甲好乙就好，这些都是固定的攻击对象。同时用了北美GRE范文那本书，学了一大套诸如without considering and ruling out….amount to scant evidence…这样的句子，然后阿狗就写的很爽了，还自以为练就了一套模版。BUT,把作文发到坛子里以后，问题来了。Imjason 说我的阿狗模版的痕迹太重，原因展开的也不够。然后推荐我去看了精华区追星剑快训的阿狗部分。一定要看的，看的我吓了一身冷汗。俺们的阿狗开头写的是又臭又长，反驳的原因写的是模糊的不能再模糊，只差没拿去当反面教材。这个时候离考试已经没有几天，幸亏发现了这个重大的问题，要不然上了考场被ETS评分的人碎尸万段了，还不知道自己怎么死的（呵呵，还是把作文拿出来给大家批的好）。讽刺的是，那个帖子我以前还看过一遍，觉得斑竹强调的问题都是很自然的事，我写阿狗的时候不会犯这种毛病。结果我真写的时候，这些注意事项都忘的一干二净。这时，我才意识到，我感觉中的有如前LA那样OK+虾米般强大的阿狗，只是一团套话+垃圾。真正的模版决不是这个摸样。后来的两天，就朝着具体化的方向努力了，原本简单的阿狗，突然难写了很多，套话让路给了原因。第三步，把阿狗的难题都挑出来看。红肉啊，地球彗星啊，罐子啊，光是题目就把我搞晕了。看看别人的总结和归纳吧，精华区都有。
我还向一个同学请教了一道题目，回答是：“这个这么变态，不会抽到的。”结果她考试抽到题目，刚好就是我问的那道，同学写的巨痛苦。没有两道阿狗给你选，小心抽到变变的题目
:lol:lol
from https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=269021&extra=page%3D5%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D100
hustzwj
发表于 2005-7-25 16:48:39
晚上看zehua的那篇!
页:
1
2
[3]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12