第一次ScoreItNow同主题

AdelineShenUID：2630498

留名~！

123runfordreamUID：2697608

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 a natural parkland. (What kind of benefits the undeveloped state of Scott Woods brings?) 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."

Body:
The issue I see in this letter is that the writer agrees with the plan building a school in the Scott Woods, which brings another issue that whether it should build shopping centers or houses in Scott Woods or not with considering about the essential question is whether it could benefit the residents or not, while as the write says not.
The apparently reasons showed in the latter why the residents did not agree with developing SW is that the undeveloped state benefits them, however it was not provided any means. While the town planning committee wants to purchase a school there, they show the supports for the use of land for children would continue to benefit the community. Thus make no much sense while we think it over.


First of all as mentioned above, how the undeveloped state of SW benefits the community was not explained completely in the letter while we may recognize these that a natural parkland is a wonderful place for people after work or during the holidays. Adults have a walk after suffers, jog in the mornings, while children play games with friends. With lots of trees, people enjoy the fresh air there. For the leisure time, it does benefit people a lot. And it is exactly the living style for people five years ago. However it is different now since the technology has been developing so fast that it changes people’s living pace, which everyone seems rush all the days at any second. Most people would rather stay at home sleeping for more a while instead of lingering on the parks without companies. The ways they live today have happened to other different ones. But there till have one common that they spend less time in the park even they want but can’t.

Building shopping centers or houses, by contrast, is possible benefiting more for the requirement of people who have less time to waiting for a car spot far away places they live in, which taking the traffic jams out of accounts on the road they driving to.
Supposed that it is built shopping centers and many houses there, people who move in the community can go down stairs only for shopping, such convenience as it would provide would be widely accepted. And the spend of car oil, the time wasting on the waiting, even the better air quality compared to driving more it can brings, for the residents, it is hardly to say there is not benefit.

Furthermore, the writer says it is not better use of the land to build a school site just for the majority of children participate in sports, which might be questioned. How many of children are there? What is the exactly meaning of majority supposed to stand for? And also how often those sports are held is beyond the concern. Thus, people should take into their consideration carefully rather then make a quick decision.

As suggestion in the letters, the writer rarely provides convincible reasons for the supports. With researching much more among the residents, concerning about the better development of the town, seeing how and how much the benefit would be produced; the planning committee should re-plan the use of Scott Woods.



Questions:
1, sometimes I can not clear the exact idea the claim says. Is it can be mentioned in the writing process? Or it is just my problem?
2, for the suggestion issue, the things we have to do is just point out what the unreasoning the writer has provided, and give more aspects should be concerned about, or totally deny the suggestion?

hychlavenderUID：2697566

天哪，好事，占座

qisaimanUID：2703629

The arguer claims that even if the Scott woods is purchased and becomes a school site, it can still benefit the community as a natural parkland and provides the children with an athletic fields. The argument seems plausible, yet it is flawed with several fallacies.

As a common sense, when one refers to a natural parkland, one actually means that the place preserves its natural states and anyone can travel to there at any time. Nevertheless, once a school was built there, it became a public site with definite purpose, which means one cannot visit it as he or she wishes except one can provide proper reason, since due to the safety consideration, school will only allow those who have appropriate reason to enter the place.

In addition, the argument fails to show that it is urgent to build a school. Consequently, it is open to doubt that the town planning committee's plan of building a school there cannot guarantee it will not be used as a site for other purpose, such as shopping center or houses, which obviously violate the initial hope of the community.

Even if a new school is necessary, the community should place careful consideration on the cost of destroying the parkland, which means many trees need to be cut down and therefore damages the local ecosystem. Meanwhile, when the Scott woods stay natural, it can be an even better place for children to participate in sports. Compared with other athletic fields, a natural parkland obviously benefits the children more in delivering fresh air and friendly environment. Thus, the community should reconsider the claims.

In the final, the argument fails to show it is necessary to build a new school, and why the site should be placed on the parkland other than anywhere else. To improve the argument, more information is needed to support the claims.

谢谢楼主的评价。

鱼肉丸子UID：2736048

支持，先顶一下~

番茄斗斗UID：2720914

Topic:                        Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

The following 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 houses can 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."

--------------------

In this letter, the author assumes that a construction of school in Scott Woods will not deplete the peafulness in Morganton, by contrast, it benefits by getting rid of the possiblity of land's being used as a business area. Reasonable he claims, it suffers from flaws mentioned in the 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 informed that natural state is a prefered by residents of Morganton, and merely persured by the author's own idea. As he suggested, when one woods is away from shopping center and houses, it can be described as natural and stays still. However, the construction of school might not be promising as he forsees. If residents determine a natural state to be quite and clean, the result of the construction between school and shopping center is similar and destorying, since both of them will bring about the prosperity and squeeze the only peacefulness. If residents acquir the woods to be harmony and well connected with the city, then school is a better option since it will highlight and produce a bond between every single family. Without a further study, rushing into the a busy construction of one school will lead to numberous complaints of residents as well as a waste of time and labor.

In addition, the idea of the benefit, which school might bring, suffers from some logic flaws in a long run. When the author conjures us a rosy future of Scott Woods, that when school is formed, residents are safe from the shopping center and the students can exercise in the athelete fields built on the rest of the land, he neglects a common phenomenon in this current market, that prosperity attractes business, like the construcition of highway increases the price of house and leads to a mutilpal industory. School cannot be the only exception. As an important public place, school is highly populated; its success arouses the population of the city as well. Once the school were well operated, business comes in return. And we can easily expect a growing business gradually encroaching the once athelete field, leave the woods far away from natural, but urban.

Furthermore, the author neglects the size of school and overly enlarges that of atheletic field. School consists of various part, atheletic field is only one part of it. Once the field is occupied as a school site, the shrinked atheletic field cannot compensate for the lost area. What's more, when condering the security, school won't be open to the pubic. 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 idea and inlogical reasoning. To reach the purpose, he should instead concentrate the result of the survey and grasp the common knowledge of market.

--------------
Q:
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？
2.机器打分是如何鉴别论述的完善与否？我很好奇。。

dingyi0311UID：2627919

占位子

小红莓UID：2641349

作文考的不好，来支持一个

aqyzwangyuanUID：2719220

The arguer claims that building a school at the Scott Wood contiuely benefit their comunity because 1) no shopping centers or houses can be built there,2) children will have athletic fields. However, during the letter the arguer's assertion suffers from two main fallacies and does not give out enough evidence to prove this assertion.
First, the arguer believe that the land can benefit the comunity if a school is built there. To support this reasoning, he uses their thinking five years ago. However, in my eyes, his excuse used five years ago is not convincing in this situation. Without building shhopping centers or houses, it did help prevent the natural state of the Scott Wood, but now, building a school also means build up some man-made objects, which are the necessary facilities for research and education. Both these two progress destory the origin state of a natural, undeveloped woods, because there must be many plants being cut down or, at least, move to other place. Based on this possible prediction, this reason for building a school is not unwarranted.
Second, the arguer believes that substaintial land would be athletic fields and it is good for the comunity for children's interest in sports. Nevertheless, it is not certain that the remain land after building school can be used for athletic fields. Maybe the condition of that land is not proper for sports so that the administration would purchase it and build houses there. And it is not exclusive between schools and houses or stores. Thus, the function of a natural parkland can not be guaranteed.
To the conclusion, the arguer's assertion does not effectively support his decision. In order to make others convinced about the contiune benefit of the Scott Wood after building a school there, arguer should give out the environment protection which maintain the benefit of natural state of the woods, the condition of the land and  the whole project about the surrounding of the school to make his assertion more convincing.
——————————————————————
尝试下

海王泪UID：2673613

IF与否
【变量】If条件状语从句
【猜测】ERADER是否有可能判断这个Indication？
        当指出作者论述成立的条件或假设、或为自己提出的可能性加限定条件时，通常看上去更严谨一些。
【不合理处】1.文章部分内容If功能与Because重合，不知道会否丧失变量意义。
            2.两篇文章字数没控好，前者518后者497，怕刚好撞上分水岭。
        
P.S.粗体标注的是If与没有If的切换部分
--------------------------------------------------------------------
我是If了N次的分隔线
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter to the local paper supports Morganton to build a school with athletic fields at natural, undeveloped Scott Woods. As far as I am concerned, the suggestion would not work well as what 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, no shopping centers or houses can be built there." It is true that locals have objected to the building of malls or domicile in Scott Woods, but what they really care is not what to buildbut how to keep. That is, Morganton need a natural, undeveloped landscape. The author falsely treats locals as those who were not satisfied with the former plan about how to use the land, and thus think they have waited for a new one to develop Scott Wood. Unfortunately, if they had not cared about an undeveloped space, they would have embraced 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.

The current plan not only fails to provide natural scenery but also benefits much smaller population than before. Residents perhaps just want to keep Scott Woods as commonage, shared by anyone in the town. When locals could not bear shopping centers, which are enjoyed by some merchandisers and consumers, or houses, which owned by certain families, how could they be willing to vote for a school available to only 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. They perhaps are reluctant to see welfare limited to only “a large majority of children” which contributes a small percentage to overall populations 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 like running, 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 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 much more in a natural park than that in an athletic field if still fixed by traditional circumference.

By comparing with a natural park, constructing a new school cannot make the best use of this land as what the author concludes. They are different in functions; they are different in beneficial population. Even worse, to children, the substantial acreage devoted to athletic fields may not work as well as being an original natural park. Therefore, what the author suggests in the letter probably is not suitable 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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter to the local paper supports Morganton to build a school with athletic fields at natural, undeveloped Scott Woods. As far as I am concerned, 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, no shopping centers or houses can be built there." It is true that locals have objected to the building of malls or domicile in Scott Woods, but what they really care is not what to build but how to keep. That is, Morganton need a natural, undeveloped landscape. The author falsely treats locals as those who were not satisfied with the former plan about how to use the land, and thus think they have waited for a new one 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 also benefits much smaller population than before. Residents perhaps just want to keep Scott Woods as commonage, shared by anyone in the town. When locals could not bear shopping centers, which are enjoyed by some merchandisers and consumers, or houses, which owned by certain families, how could they be willing to vote for a school available to only several hundred of boys and girls? Not every family has several troubling kids for sending to school；most of the residents in Morganton may not agree with a new school. They perhaps are reluctant to see welfare limited to only “a large majority of children” which contributes a small percentage to overall populations 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 lives due to specific local conditions. It is the purpose of athletic fields to provide area for sports like running, jumping, playing football and so on. Ironically, children can also run, jump and play football at an open space of natural parkland. They can even have more fun when variety of landform in undeveloped natural park produces more activity: a lake for swimming, trees for climbing, or maybe a hill for hiking. Kids could enjoy much more in a natural park than that in an athletic field fixed by traditional circumference.

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

P.S.写得很僵硬。。。呃～但还是希望能成为幸运儿~ ^_^
P.S. (Feb.22) 稍作修改，语法不好~555 自己都给If混淆了。。

123runfordreamUID：2697608

传说中的让步？~~

iq28UID：2152875

thank you for all the posts.
i've been very busy these days and am still at work now, cannot type in chinese, sorry.
unfortunately we may not be able to have people disscus all the arguments posted here (it seems not heated up as i expected:( )
but i will evaluate briefly all by my tomorrow night (beijing time 23rd morning, so anyone who's interested in it could still posts his/her argument(s) here) and select and submit 6-10 to scoreitnow.
thank you for all the participants:)

firhadayUID：2287086

misir(Misir) 5楼
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？

tequilawine 7楼
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。

海王泪(Kon) 11楼
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。

itsuper  14楼
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?

pluka 15楼
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）？

123runfordream(C。) 18楼
Questions:
1, sometimes I can not clear the exact idea the claim says. Is it can be mentioned in the writing process? Or it is just my problem?
2, for the suggestion issue, the things we have to do is just point out what the unreasoning the writer has provided, and give more aspects should be concerned about, or totally deny the suggestion?

番茄斗斗 22楼
Q:
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？
2.机器打分是如何鉴别论述的完善与否？我很好奇。。

firhadayUID：2287086

我简单的把问题汇总下：
1.开头是否需要重复？
2.A的质疑点式需要多而，广，全，还是精，专，深？
3.A的质疑结构是如何的？如北美般的模版化？还是像官方范文般的？
4.字数是否有影响？


如果有不全的，大家补充下，那么IQ斑竹选文章的时候能更加明确目标~谢谢配合

iq28UID：2152875

好嘛，一共才八九篇文章，呵呵。。