[主题活动] 所有被选中交给erater改的文章 [复制链接]

iq28
UID：2152875

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 902
寄托币: 18362
注册时间: 2005-10-29
精华: 23
帖子: 1033

发表于 2010-2-23 11:13:09 |显示全部楼层

本帖最后由 iq28 于 2010-2-26 16:20 编辑

原文我的评价在本贴二楼
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1062122-1-1.html

很多人的文章做出细小修改之后就可以作为正面教材被送给erater评分了，请已经贴了文章的筒子速度回到同主题帖按照我给的建议修改，然后继续回复在那个帖子后面。没有贴文章的筒子现在想参加，只要仔细看清楚顶楼里的要求以及参考26楼海王泪的做法，一样有机会被选中给erater判分！

简略评价：第一篇是现在

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。

第二篇和第三篇：和第一篇类似，作者海王泪要求是看大量if的作用。erater对两篇文章给出的评分和别的分析结果没有区别，这个结果也和我预料的差不多（13刀啊@@）但因为毕竟在本次同主题中唯一仔细看顶楼要求的人是海王泪，两篇文章的判分作为奖励显然不为过：）如果还有第二次同主题，希望大家能更仔细看主楼的要求：）

==================================================================================================
Organization中thesis statement判定没有找到thesis。

Score: 3 Time Left: 0 Minutes
Explanation of Score: A 3 paper demonstrates some competence in its analysis of the issue and in conveying meaning but is obviously flawed.
A typical paper in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:

is vague or limited in presenting or developing a position on the issue
is weak in the use of relevant reasons or examples
is poorly focused and/or poorly organized
has problems in language and sentence structure that result in a lack of clarity
contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that can interfere with meaning

                     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."
                     Your Answer:                      Inthis letter the author reviewed why they kept public land wild fiveyears ago and proposed new plan of developing the land into a schoolwith his/her reasons. As a suggestion of local development, the core ofhis/her argument should be that, to maintain maximum benefit of thecommunity regarding to the Scott Land issue. Therefore my followinganalysis will be based on the overall benefit for local people.

Wemay start from 'continue to benefit' the author mentioned in top lines.It is natural to ask the question which the author failed to answer,that in what way local community had been benefited from the parklandbefore? Economically? Environmentally? Or comfort of people? And towhat extent was the benefit that local people could get from the wildland? Without knowing the answers of questions above, and how badlylocal people needed new houses or shopping centers, we cannot say thedecision of five years ago is a wise choice. Now for the current planof school construction, one reason the author said is no houses orshopping centers could be built there. First as discussed above, it isnot clear yet building houses or shopping centers is pernicious. Evenif it is, building a school there does not mean no shopping centers orhouses could be built nearby. There is no clue in the argument said theschool construction would occupy the whole parkland so there would beno space for houses or shopping centers.

The other reason authorbrought up in support of school construction is athletic fieldsfollowing with the school will serve well for children who participatein sports. Let us just assume the acreage will turn into athleticfields as the author, which actually may not be the case. Is theathletic field for the right kinds of sports most local children like?Are these sports conducted in a athletic field? Or they are actuallydone somewhere else like fishing, hiking or even indoor sports. Also,are local children really in short of new athletic fields? It isentirely possible they have already had enough athletic fields. Even ifanswers to both questions are positive, what about children who do notlike sports? And what about the interests of adult and senior peoplebesides children? The interests of the whole local community is notjust about children who like certain kind of sports.

Insummary, the author should consider the whole benefits of thecommunity, and examine in details how local people are benefited fromScott Woods; specify what benefits of certain types of developments onthat land could be brought to local people, and how will thatdevelopment affect the former benefits from natural land. Then thesuggestion could be more reasonable for local development.

================================================================================================

Score: 4                      Time Left:                      0 Minutes
                     Explanation of Score:                      A 4 paper presents a competent analysis of the issue and conveys meaning adequately.
A typical paper in this category

develops the position on the issue with relevant reasons and/or examples
is adequately focused and organized
expresses ideas with reasonable clarity
generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English but may have some errors

                     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."
                     Your Answer:                      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 would not work well as what the author thinksif he fail to notice what issue the locals really consider about.

Theauthor first points out "if the land becomes a school site, no shoppingcenters or houses can be built there." It is true that locals haveobjected to the building of malls or domicile in Scott Woods, but whatthey 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. Unfortunately, if they had not cared aboutan undeveloped space, they would have embraced more commerce or livingarea before the current plan. In fact, there is a story aboutinhabitants who favors their original beauty. A new school cannot avoiddestroying it.

The current plan not only fails to providenatural scenery but also benefits much smaller population than before.Residents perhaps just want to keep Scott Woods as commonage, shared byanyone in the town. When locals could not bear shopping centers, whichare enjoyed by some merchandisers and consumers, or houses, which ownedby certain families, how could they be willing to vote for a schoolavailable to only several hundred of boys and girls? If not havingseveral troubling kids, it is very possible that residents would arguestrongly against a new school. They perhaps are reluctant to seewelfare limited to only "a large majority of children" whichcontributes a small percentage to overall populations in Morganton.

Supposetown citizen reconsider the issue, thinking more about their kids, theuse of land as athletic fields may not be worth if it fail to improvethe quality of children's lives. It is the purpose of athletic fieldsto provide area for sports like running, jumping, playing football andso on. Ironically, children, if not as mature as those in college, canalso run, jump and play football at an open space of natural parkland.They can even have more fun when variety of landform in natural park,if really undeveloped, produces more activity: a lake for swimming,trees for climbing, or maybe a hill for hiking. Kids could enjoy muchmore in a natural park than that in an athletic field if still fixed bytraditional circumference.

By comparing with a natural park,constructing a new school cannot make the best use of this land as whatthe author concludes. They are different in functions; they aredifferent in beneficial population. Even worse, to children, thesubstantial acreage devoted to athletic fields may not work as well asbeing an original natural park. Therefore, what the author suggests inthe letter probably is not suitable to the Morganton, where has locateda unique Scott Wood if irreversible after development.

================================================================================================
Score: 4                      Time Left:                      0 Minutes
                     Explanation of Score:                      A 4 paper presents a competent analysis of the issue and conveys meaning adequately.
A typical paper in this category

develops the position on the issue with relevant reasons and/or examples
is adequately focused and organized
expresses ideas with reasonable clarity
generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English but may have some errors