本帖最后由 wcnk 于 2010-2-23 23:38 编辑
我的问题：
1. 怎样重复原文不显得罗嗦？
2. 是不是在开头段加一个提纲会更好的协助erater找到我的论点？
3.结尾应该怎样总结？由于一直时间不够，只能写万用结尾（不提具体内容），其他方法的结尾有哪些？怎样写既不罗嗦，又恰到好处？
4.小问题：he or she 在文中是不是有影响，我每次都用one代替，避免he的出现。
关于第二条，我写了两个，一个有提纲，但是开头比较长，而且在写作思路上，有提纲挈领的作用（虽然这么说，但是我仍然是全写完回头又补上的，估计如果在熟悉一下自己的模板就能顺序写下来了）。大家看看，会不会显得重复？
攻击点：
1. 作者错误认为只有建SHOPPPING CENTERS AND HOUSES 是破坏环境，实际上建学校一样违背不破坏natural parkland 的原则。
2. 作者错误认为运动场将是最好的利用土地的方法。
3. 学校由政府出资对那些没有孩子的老年人不太公平。而且一些反对者将会给committe 造成压力。（其实最后一点是勉强加上去的，因为我感觉前面都攻击完了，有点凑字数的嫌疑，大家帮忙看看~~）
In this argument, the arguer proposes that people in Morganton (M for short) should purchase Scott Woods (SW for short) and build a school under the assumption that building a school will keep SW continuing to benefit our community as natural parkland. It seems convincing at the first sight, however it suffers from several flaws.
First, the arguer mistakenly considers that to build a school on the land would not affect SW from benefiting our community as natural parkland. The arguer keeps the notion that only shopping centers and houses built there would damage the parkland landscape. In fact, as defined in the first sentence, natural parkland means a natural, undeveloped state and the issue of constructing a school would obviously act against the discipline shared by all people of M. What’s more, the arguer claims that substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields which may be at the cost of removing the grassland and forests, which is clearly damaging the natural environment.
Besides, the arguer unfairly assumes that athletic fields would be the best use of land. Although the arguer claim that a large of our children participate in sports, he fails to offer us the quantity of how many children would benefit from athletic fields. It is clear that many children may not that athletic thus they would never benefit from the change that turning a park into a sports field. What’s more, there may be many other use of this land which would be better use other than turning it into athletic fields. Maybe the idea of build a shopping center and houses are better beneficial to all the citizens since both of this two ideas cannot preserve SW as natural parkland. Merely based on the reason given by the arguer, we cannot be convinced to accept the recommendation.
In the last, the arguer fails to take all the citizens’ interest in to consideration, especially those old people who do not have children or students in their families. Because this idea would benefit less people, however the money for building a school should be purchased by the government—all of the money are collect through tax from all the citizens. Compared with the original parkland, many people would not be able to enjoy the natural landscape if there is a school instead. Besides, some environmental protecting groups would also make a hard time to our town planning committee.
In all, merely on several assumptions offered by the arguer, we cannot be convinced by the arguer’s recommendation. Maybe other suitable sites should be considered instead of SW.
=============================================================================
In this argument, the arguer proposes that people in Morganton (M for short) should purchase Scott Woods (SW for short) and build a school under the assumption that building a school will keep SW continuing to benefit our community as natural parkland. It seems convincing at the first sight, however, the analysis is not sufficient in three aspects: whether building a school can keep the natural parkland of SW; whether the idea of athletic fields is the best use of substantial acreage; whether the cost of building a school purchased by all the tax payers is appropriate?（与第一篇不同之处）
First, the arguer mistakenly considers that to build a school on the land would not affect SW from benefiting our community as natural parkland. The arguer keeps the notion that only shopping centers and houses built there would damage the parkland landscape. In fact, as defined in the first sentence, natural parkland means a natural, undeveloped state and the issue of constructing a school would obviously act against the discipline shared by all people of M. What’s more, the arguer claims that substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields which may be at the cost of removing the grassland and forests, which is clearly damaging the natural environment.
Besides, the arguer unfairly assumes that athletic fields would be the best use of land. Although the arguer claim that a large of our children participate in sports, he fails to offer us the quantity of how many children would benefit from athletic fields. It is clear that many children may not that athletic thus they would never benefit from the change that turning a park into a sports field. What’s more, there may be many other use of this land which would be better use other than turning it into athletic fields. Maybe the idea of build a shopping center and houses are better beneficial to all the citizens since both of this two ideas cannot preserve SW as natural parkland. Merely based on the reason given by the arguer, we cannot be convinced to accept the recommendation.
In the last, the arguer fails to take all the citizens’ interest in to consideration, especially those old people who do not have children or students in their families. Because this idea would benefit less people, however the money for building a school should be purchased by the government—all of the money are collect through tax from all the citizens. Compared with the original parkland, many people would not be able to enjoy the natural landscape if there is a school instead. Besides, some environmental protecting groups would also make a hard time to our town planning committee.
In all, merely on several assumptions offered by the arguer, we cannot be convinced by the arguer’s recommendation. Maybe other suitable sites should be considered instead of SW.
| 
GO
楼主: iq28
发表于 2010-2-23 13:57:56
发表于 2010-2-23 15:43:43
发表于 2010-2-27 01:01:29
除了第一个问题是英文回答，其余都是用中文，时间大概十分钟左右。1.为什么来香港读书2.会粤语吗3.根据专业...
转发
