第一篇 argu1 and argu 2希望指点狠拍
本帖最后由 newstep 于 2012-1-21 13:51 编辑新G 题号：1
题目Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been
found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and thereforewere
believed to have beenmade only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists
discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea.
The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by
boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets
were not uniquely Palean.
写作要求Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate
the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
题号：新GRE 2
题目：A recent study of eighteen rhesusmonkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order
on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such
as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as
much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their
younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating
situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during
pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had
several offspring.
写作要求：Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that
could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly
account for the facts presented in the argument.Argument 1
This argument is well presented but far-fetched. In this argument, the author concludes plausibly that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. The basis for this conclusion is that Woven baskets were found only in the vicinity of Palea, thus believed to have been made only by Palean people. Additional evidence given in support of this conclusion is that archaeologists discovered a Palean basket in Lithos, which was across the deep and broad river. But after a close scrutiny, the seemingly sound claim falls apart for being short of effective evidence.
First, a threshold problem comes into being in the perquisite of this argument, which Woven baskets uniquely belong to Palea. However, this contention is open to a number of interpretations. It is possible that people in the village of Palea just brought the Woven baskets from other places; another possibility is that Woven baskets were made in other places, nonetheless, people did not find the baskets; it is also likely that descendants bring the baskets to the Palea. Hence, without accounting for as well as ruling out other likely scenarios, by no means could the author contend that the baskets were made by Palean people.
Moreover, even though the author might be able to provide evidence for us to deduce a solution to the problem presented afterwards, the argument still maintains ill-conceived. Another problem could be located that the author assumes that the Brim River in the past is the same as the present, which is deep and broad. In this light, it is reasonable to cast doubts upon the author’s presumption, for the reason that the condition between the past and the present might not be equivalent. For instance, the river in the past might be considerably shallow, and it was quite easy for people to swim across the river; or there was a bridge above the river, and people could go through the bridge to cross the river; or even the river did not exist in the past. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it proves t be the author’s responsibility to mull over his assumptions and purvey relative evidence so as to pave the way for a more tenable argument.
Ultimately, even if the foregoing assumptions might turn out to be supported by ensuing evidence, a crucial problem remains that the author provides no assurance that there are not other transportations to come across the river. What the definition of the “deep and broad”, and does it mean people want to cross the river just by boat? Obviously, numerous ways might assist people, such as by wood, by raft and by swimming. In addition, the basket might merely float to the other bank without people; or there were boats in the past, but archaeologists did not find the boats. Only by evidence of demonstrating that no basket was brought from other places could the author bolster his recommendation.
To sum up, the conclusion reached by the author lacks credibility since the argument has several flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To better evaluate the argument, the author ought to provide more concrete evidence.
Argument 2
This argument is well presented but far-fetched. In this argument, the author concludes plausibly that the effects of birth order on an individual’s level of stimulation. The basis for this conclusion is that the recent study of 18 rhesus monkeys, which showed the firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol (HC). But after a close scrutiny, the seemingly sound claim falls apart for being short of effective evidence.
First, a threshold problem comes into being that the firstborn infant monkeys produce up more HC because of the birth order. However, this contention is open to a number of interpretations. It is possible that age factor determines the individual’s levels of stimulation. For example, the age of the firstborn infant is older than the others, so the stimulation of HC is more than their younger siblings. As the younger siblings grow up, the stimulation of HC might be larger than the older ones. Lacking information about what factor control the stimulation of HC makes the argument impossible to assess the validity of the survey. Even if the firstborn moneys stimulate more HC than younger siblings, it can merely illustrate the first one not the order that have the effect on the level’s stimulation.
Moreover, even though the author might be able to provide evidence for us to deduce a solution to the problem presented above afterwards, the argument still maintains ill-conceived. Another problem could be located that the author assumes that firstborn humans can be equivalent with the firstborn moneys. Nonetheless, the author omits to inform us that whether the situations and conditions of the experiment are the same of the firstborn monkey’s survey. In addition, the author also fails to point out the contrast with their younger siblings. It is entirely possible that the environment affects the stimulation of HC. Perhaps firstborn humans receive more care and they have no siblings to play with them, which leads to their high stimulation of HC. Only by evidence of demonstrating that firstborn humans stimulate more HC than other siblings, while other factors can be ruled out could the author bolster his recommendation.
Ultimately, even if the foregoing assumptions might turn out to be supported by ensuing evidence, a crucial problem remains that the author provides no assurance that fist-time mother monkeys had higher level of cortisal contributes to the effects of birth order. There might be no causal relationship with the birth order, which could lie in lack of experience because they are pregnant first time; or emerging from the reason that they feel nervous that lead to the high levels of cortisol. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it proves to be the author’s responsibility to mull over author’s assumptions and purvey relative evidence so as to pave the way for a more tenable argument.
To sum up, the conclusion reached by the author lacks credibility since the argument has several flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To better evaluate the argument, the author ought to provide more concrete evidence.
页:
[1]