关于作文格式和ARGU的问题，谢谢
自己打字的时候，经常出现句子末尾的标点符号格式不正确。应该是词直接跟标点，然后空一格再起下一句。但是我不是空错地方，就是一空好几个。这个问题会影响分数吗？另外，ARGUMENT大概需要多少字数啊？我自己定时基本只能达到470，少吗？
还有，如果错误没有找全（小错误漏了），或者“它因”说得不够全面是不是会导致低分呢？
请大家多多指教，谢谢了！！！！！
自己打字的时候，经常出现句子末尾的标点符号格式不正确。应该是词直接跟标点，然后空一格再起下一句。但是我不是空错地方，就是一空好几个。这个问题会影响分数吗？
应该不会影响分数。但是若能做到格式统一、美观，岂不是更好？！
另外，ARGUMENT大概需要多少字数啊？我自己定时基本只能达到470，少吗？
这字数差不多够了。
如果错误没有找全（小错误漏了），或者“它因”说得不够全面是不是会导致低分呢？
把主要的逻辑谬误抓住了，就没有大问题了。 thanks a lot :)
ARGU的首段可不可以不重述题目的观点和论据呢？
这样岂不是能省下时间好好展开中间段吗？因为我的问题就是，每个错误仅仅是点到即可，没有太多的时间展开，导致每一段都像豆腐干一样，小小的一块
……………… https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=134092
不要复述题目,开头至多写3.4句话 原帖由 scampering 于 2006-1-27 21:50 发表
这样岂不是能省下时间好好展开中间段吗？
因为我的问题就是，每个错误仅仅是点到即可，没有太多的时间展开，导致每一段都像豆腐干一样，小小的一块
………………
argument的开头不提倡复述题目中的内容。应该把重点放在中间攻击段落的展开上，这才是重点。 原帖由 staralways 于 2006-1-27 21:53 发表
argument的开头不提倡复述题目中的内容。应该把重点放在中间攻击段落的展开上，这才是重点。
我又占到你前面去了,挖卡卡卡卡:D 可是传统的写法不是，首段要先写作者的观点，在简要写他的理由吗？我感觉这样一来已经不短了啊·
大家是怎么处理的？能不能贴一个例子看看呢？谢谢！ 要不大家评论一下我的这篇ARGU 行吗？
我个人感觉是中间部分展开不够，而首尾罗嗦了些，大家如何看？
140. The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants科研补助金 has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college."
正文 ：
In this argument, the author recommend that professor Thomas should get a salary raise and promotion to Department Chairperson, otherwise, she would probably leave for another university. To support this assertion, the author cites the fact that Professor Thomas has gain wide popularity at the university and has brought large amount of money to research programs. At the first blush, this argument seems reasonable; however, careful examination reveals that some serious logical flaws root in it, as discussed below.
To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that Professor Thomas has gain wide popularity at the university since her class is the biggest one. However, there exists no direct causal relationship between the number of students and teacher's popularity. It is equally possible that professor Thomas’s curriculum is compulsory, thus, those students have to take part in for graduation degree. If true, the author's conclusion about her popularity would amount to nothing, let alone the recommendation about raising salary and promotion.
Secondly, the author fails to provide clear evidence for supporting Professor Thomas's research ability. Although she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary, yet, we do not know the amount other professor bring to the research. Without eliminating the possibility that all other professor brought much more funds to the university's research programs, the author can not convince us that her research ability is superior to others.
Even if the foregoing two assumptions are trustful and reasonable, it is still unjustifiable to recommend offering a promotion to Department Chairperson. It is entirely possible that professor Thomas’s do not know much about work in that apartment and is not competent enough to do that.
Last but the least, the author unjustly assumes that if salary raise and promotion is not exerted, Professor Thomas will probably leave Elm City University for another college. However, it is most likely that there is no other universities who invited or tend to invite her, or perhaps there are no other universities bearing professor Thomas’s major subject. So, before further investigation, I would like to suspend my contention concerning whether it is necessary and sound for Professor Thomas to be offered a salary increase and promotion.
In sum, the recommendation relies on certain logical flaws and unreasonable assumptions, thus, is suspicious as it stands. To better assess the argument, the arguer should either modify his/her recommendation, or provide further supportive compelling evidence to aptly illustrate his assertion: 1) whether Professor Thomas is indeed popular in Elm City University? 2) Whether she contributed more to the university's research working than other professors? 3) Whether she is a proficient master about work of Department Chairperson, and whether she is familiar with the new work. Without being given all those information, the arguer's recommendation is unwarranted, as it stands. 原帖由 scampering 于 2006-1-27 22:47 发表
可是传统的写法不是，首段要先写作者的观点，在简要写他的理由吗？我感觉这样一来已经不短了啊·
大家是怎么处理的？能不能贴一个例子看看呢？谢谢！
你是不是看老外280学来的"传统写法"? 这种写法是被否定的
比如你的"to support..."那一句就不要 没有，我是听新东方老师怎么说的………………
那 也就是说只复述结论，不重复论据是完全可以的是马？
改成这样可以是吗？
In this argument, the author recommend that professor Thomas should get a salary raise and promotion to Department Chairperson, otherwise, she would probably leave for another university. At the first blush, this argument seems reasonable; however, careful examination reveals that some serious logical flaws root in it, as discussed below. 哦，发现北美范文基本都是这样的，这个和“老外280”是一个东西马？
值得信赖否？ 晕了
是的.不重复论据
我觉得你那个at the first glance(blush我还没见过-_-) 一句反正是形式化的句子,可以换个更短的
其他的就没什么了.
我给你推荐的帖子看了么?汗....
北美范文=280 啥都不要相信,看ETS官方范文的点评吧
哦，不好意思，漏过去i了，现在正在补看，多谢多谢！！！！收获不小啊！关键是观念改了：）
页:
[1]
2