寄托天下 寄托天下
查看: 2912|回复: 8

[主题活动] 【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】系列之——How to be strong, appropriately [复制链接]

Rank: 16Rank: 16Rank: 16Rank: 16

声望
3963
寄托币
23288
注册时间
2008-1-2
精华
50
帖子
2209

Sagittarius射手座 AW活动特殊奖 AW作文修改奖 IBT Elegance 挑战ETS奖章 US Advisor US Assistant 荣誉版主

发表于 2009-7-24 17:19:02 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 草木也知愁 于 2009-7-24 17:22 编辑




作为AW,是一种analytical writting,我们要展示自己对topic的逻辑内核的分析能力

作为AW,是一种critical writing,但是我们要critical哪里呢?

作为AW,是一种logical writing,也就是我们要针对logical做criticise

作为AW,是一种effective writting,既然是GRE那么我们就要以graduate的实力和角度去写东西,don't be a baby

作为AW,是一种persuasive writing,自然用语要避免啰嗦以及软弱无力

作为AW,是一种academic writing,行文不能过激,也不能太露锋芒

作为AW,是一种concise writing,因为时间的限制,我们必须要在有限的篇幅内简短有力的表达出自己的观点

作文AW,是一种reader-centered writting,太过偏激的思维以及言辞,虽然没有明文规定,必定会造成rater的反感




作为ETS,他们是一个讲信用的机构,规则的喜好已经明明白白给了我们

作为ETS,他们给了我们极其珍贵的六篇ARGUMENT范文



作为范文,其是一个让我们更好理解评分标准的工具。一切的准备,一切的评判,都要以评分标准为基线,是就是,不是就不是。有人说官方范文是ETS
写的,有的人说不是,ETS从来没有正面承认过是他们自己写的。但是有一点我们可以完全确定,comments是他们写的——那里有他们的倾向与厌恶 那里才是他们自己的话。那么我们应该如何呢?



作为考生,我们要牢记analytical、critical 、logical 、effective 、persuasive 、academic 、concise、 reader-centered八个要点

作为考生,我们要脚踏实地去从ETS给我们的细节里寻求正确的备考之道

作为考生,我们要学范文里comments里透露出来的精髓

作为考生,那八点每一个都有道理,但是并非轻而易举多就可以全部驾驭,尤其是如何在各个要点之间去寻求一个平衡点



作为备考者,我也曾经历过为了一词一句而反复琢磨,去考虑合适与否,会不会用过界

作为旁观者,我也曾经看过很多很多人去做这样一个工作

作为旁观者,我也曾经看到过一部分愤青借由“GRE是一个开放国家做的考试,我们要把过去被压抑的思想去写出来”去大书特书

作为旁观者,我也曾经改过很多很多篇作文,对这些现象有极多的第一手资料



所以今天,作为这篇文章的作者,在这里,就由我来帮大家去找好这个平衡点,去将你的思路展开



此篇是“君子之辩”的兄弟篇,同样是为了帮助大家扫清ARGUMENT“下三路攻击”的误区,君子之辩主要说的是对suvery实体的态度,这篇从另一个方面要去讨论对所有调查、统计、事实背景中关于个人的态度



依旧,以最权威的ETS官方范文comments为开头进行分析:

一下是我摘选的六篇comments,请注意,其中两篇是六分的,四篇是五分的。选取标准:

关键词“strong”

COMMENTARY

As in the sample 6 essay, this writer sees some logic in assuming a connection between the higher speed limit in Forestville and the increase in auto accidents.
Unlike the sample 6 essay, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed.
The writer makes these points in the critique:
-- A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in
accidents is not as significant as it might seem.
-- A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the
problem.
-- A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major
conclusions.
-- Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.
Although each of these points is developed and sensibly supported, the critique is not sufficiently full to warrant a score of 6.
The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions.
The occasional flaws (e.g., the somewhat garbled syntax in paragraph 3: "time for which to study the rate???") do not detract from the overall strong quality of the essay.
For all of these reasons, this critique is strong but not outstanding, and thus merits a score of 5.



COMMENTARY

This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.
However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.
The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland."
Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions.
This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."
The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."
Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions.
While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this essay demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing.
It clearly earns a 6.



COMMENTARY

After describing the argument as "weak," this strong essay goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development.
The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique.
The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal.
These address
-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods
-- the impact of development on Scott Woods
-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"
The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:
-- whether the school is necessary
-- whether the selected site is appropriate
-- whether some groups might oppose the plan
Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as a 6 essay.
The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ". aining allies to change a park to a school").
Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows 5-level facility with language.



COMMENTARY

This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, observing that it "indicates a possible relationship" but that its conclusion "is premature." It raises three central questions that, if answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument:
What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters?
What is the usefulness of protective or reflective gear in preventing or mitigating roller-skating-related injuries?
What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes?
The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. The paper does not analyze the argument as insightfully or develop the critique as fully as the typical "6" paper, but the clear organization, strong control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more than a score of "4."



COMMENTARY

After dismissing the argument's unsupported conclusion about the University of Claria, this strong essay thoughtfully critiques the argument's presumptive line of reasoning.
The response targets a root flaw in the argument's logic: that the data provided fail to constitute meaningful evidence of educational quality.
The writer notes the lack of essential statistics -- e.g., the faculty/student ratio -- and argues quite effectively that invitations for faculty to teach in other countries may not be a reliable index of educational merit.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 address additional flaws in the argument:
-- whether the 75% of employed graduates found work related to their
majors;
-- whether, in a research-oriented institution like Claria, it might not
be expected that most graduates would go on to graduate school
-- whether Claria might not be affordable to all applicants or might be
located in an area that some would find undesirable.
The analysis is clear, sensible, and logically organized, but development is neither as uniform nor as full as in a typical 6 essay.
Nor is the response as precise as a 6.
In the final paragraph, for instance, references to Claria's cost are vaguely described as "the socioeconomic status of the institution."
The response exhibits generally good control of language, but awkward phrasing and inflated language sometimes result in a lack of clarity (e.g., "left being taught," "fields of major," "Bachelor's level degree").
Overall, this essay merits a score of 5.
It presents a well-developed and effectively written critique, but lacks the cogency and superior fluency of a 6.



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.
The main points of the critique are that
-- the real reasons for a decline in viewership have not yet been
identified;
-- Silver Screen may not produce different kinds of movies to appeal to
diverse interests;
-- the number of favorably reviewed movies may actually have been
very low; and
-- spending money to produce a possibly poor movie would hurt rather
than help the company.
Although more points are made here than are made in sample 6, each of the points made in the 6 essay is developed.
That is not the case here.
In this essay, each point is supported (by perhaps an additional sentence), but it is not further developed.
The essay is smoothly organized with few but appropriate transitions.
The writing is strong with some variety in syntax.
For these reasons, this response earns a score of 5.




【Question One】

要展示自己对topic的逻辑内核的分析能力;要针对logical做criticise;要以graduate的角度去写东西,don't be a baby
要在有限的篇幅内简短有力的表达出自己的观点,用语要避免啰嗦以及软弱无力;但同时行文又不能过激,也不能太露锋芒;

这个平衡点在哪里?“稳准狠”的要求在这里,但是我们应该怎么准,应该狠到什么程度?



【Question Two】

ETS不会再comments说废话,更不会说误导我们的话,那么从这个“strong”里我们能得出什么呢?

【Question Three】

如何区分是否是人身攻击?(在日常生活交流很多情况下,对于自我中心强烈,同时社会经验不多的同学,往往自己无心之言就犯了人家的忌讳,对AW也同样)

以下是摘引的wikipedia的一段话对人身攻击的解释:



人身攻击的谬误,通常简称作人身攻击,是指在讨论时针对或提出对方的人格、动机、态度、地位、阶级或处境等,而进行攻击或评论,并以此当作提出了理据去驳斥对方的论证或去支持自己的论点,此乃犯了人身攻击谬误。
哲学家李天命认为:
其实只要没有将品格批判当做驳论的理据,那批判就没有犯人身攻击的谬误。否则的话,父母责骂子女,法庭判辞批评罪犯的操行,便全都犯上人身攻击的谬误了。”[1]

Ad hominem abusive
* “你没有加入我们这行,怎么可以对我们就说三道四!

Ad hominem circumstantial
* “你是石油公司的员工,为了利益,你当然会质疑全球暖化!
*  “你干嘛讨论政治?你又未成年。

Ad hominem tu quoque
* “你自己也偷了东西,所以没资格骂别人偷东西。

Guilt by association
* “你说XX应该独立。可是XX组织也这么说,因此你是XX组织的人。
一种相似的战术也用于鼓励某人放弃观点,或者迫使他们承认和小组的关连。
* 比如:你说XX应该独立。我相信这是错的:因为XX组织也这么说,你应该是位讨厌XX组织的人吧?
牵连犯罪也许与人身攻击结合。
* 比如:你说XX应该独立。可是XX组织也这么说,因此你是XX组织的人。XX组织想说什么大家都知道,而且说的都错。因此你是错的。


【Question Four】

平时看economist类的杂志里有很多讽刺幽默性的话语,感觉效果很好,如果借鉴到AW里,合不合适呢?


【Question Five】

Dare you?

接下来就讨论吧,可以拿具体题目来分析。

我也会陪着大家讨论,同时对所讨论的内容,适当地方会给出这篇里没有写的部分内容,要记住,只有你们拿出来了用心思考之后的成果,我才会给你们更好的~授人以渔是我的一贯思路,想要伸着懒腰直接从我手里拿走鱼是不可能滴

一定要是你亲自动脑思考然后和别人讨论过的东西,才真的会被你牢牢记住,并且应用在实践中。对于ARGUMENT,这个“strong”是很重要的,而且如果没有真的深刻思考过,那可以就是失之毫厘差以千里。想要摘星那就要站在高楼之上,但是哪怕你往前多迈那么一步,下面都是万丈深渊。

Dare you?


【Bonus】

这篇我不想给什么奖励去刺激大家,我只说一点:
过去得超过五分的人,可能他们中的大多数人是没有去主动思考过这个的,而且大多数备考者也是不去仔细体会这些的。但是如果你想实打实的,有绝对把握去拿高分,而且以后出去之后不会因为文字上的东西给自己造成麻烦,那就好好去分析讨论吧


讨论过程中要注意的keyponits:

【KEYPONIT ONE】
作为AW的写作,尤其是ARGUMENT部分,我们要始终保持一个关键——对事不对人

【KEYPOINT TWO】
作为对英语并非真的驾驭娴熟,尤其是在做AW级别考试的时候,要脚踏实地










附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号?立即注册
已有 1 人评分声望 收起 理由
家家☆yoonjae + 2 =.= 辛苦费

总评分: 声望 + 2   查看全部投币

回应

使用道具 举报

Rank: 5Rank: 5

声望
145
寄托币
1397
注册时间
2009-2-22
精华
0
帖子
128

GRE斩浪之魂 AW活动特殊奖 GRE梦想之帆

发表于 2009-7-24 17:49:36 |显示全部楼层
啊, 传说中的沙发??!!呵呵, 激动激动
慢慢看,慢慢看~~~
哦,谢谢草木!!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
352
寄托币
11972
注册时间
2007-6-29
精华
1
帖子
453

AW活动特殊奖 AW小组活动奖 枫情万种 一帆枫顺

发表于 2009-7-24 18:14:12 |显示全部楼层
突然醒觉,用中文经常“人参公鸡”。。。
不过嘛,AW还算比较注意- -!
谢谢草木
既然是GRE,那么更是非杀不可

右键-》属性-》复制URL->新网页打

使用道具 举报

Rank: 3Rank: 3

声望
0
寄托币
243
注册时间
2009-2-18
精华
0
帖子
1
发表于 2009-7-24 19:53:21 |显示全部楼层
呃  居然抢到前排= =接着再看
= =待改动。

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
1
寄托币
1029
注册时间
2009-6-7
精华
0
帖子
70
发表于 2009-7-24 20:15:01 |显示全部楼层
慢慢学习~~
I like this life and I will do it for my best

使用道具 举报

Rank: 8Rank: 8

声望
925
寄托币
16929
注册时间
2009-5-31
精华
1
帖子
700

荣誉版主 AW活动特殊奖 AW小组活动奖 Cancer巨蟹座 GRE梦想之帆 GRE斩浪之魂 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-7-24 20:58:30 |显示全部楼层
在下水道了。。。。
Believe your believes, that's it.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 3Rank: 3

声望
58
寄托币
533
注册时间
2009-7-10
精华
0
帖子
8

AW作文修改奖

发表于 2009-7-31 15:08:34 |显示全部楼层
先支持一下~~ 研究一下在和大家讨论

使用道具 举报

Rank: 1

声望
28
寄托币
1991
注册时间
2008-12-3
精华
0
帖子
7
发表于 2009-8-5 10:52:17 |显示全部楼层
回答【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】——How to be strong, appropriately
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-992397-1-1.html
静心养气

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
653
寄托币
9603
注册时间
2009-1-5
精华
1
帖子
45

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 GRE梦想之帆 GRE斩浪之魂 枫华正茂 一帆枫顺

发表于 2009-8-13 21:59:45 |显示全部楼层

使用道具 举报

RE: 【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】系列之——How to be strong, appropriately [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】系列之——How to be strong, appropriately
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-987991-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部