第一篇argument,求拍，要很狠拍～
题目是很老的Forestville Speed Limit，第一篇写在论坛上的，想先练练手Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.The author made a suspicion that the augmentof accidents in Forestvile during last six months were definitely caused by thespeed increased limit for vehicles traveling. Is that logic surely established?It might be no because the author ignored lots of other factors which couldinfluence the number of accidents in Forestvile.
First of all, the relative number"15%", as was stated by author, could never tell us what exact numberof accidents occurred in Forestvile. It is very common that the digital ofaccidents slightly varies during different months.
Furthermore, the number of automobileaccidents in Elmsford decreased cannot prove anything because there are plentyof distinctions between Forestvile and Elmsford. The situations ,like weathersituation and population factor, absolutely were different in different cities.Conclusion that the reason of increased accidents was the change of speed limitcan never been made by simple comparison of two totally different cities.
Moreover, the adaption to the change ofspeed limit should be accounted not only because people used to be fit with oldstandard of limit speed instead of new one, but also because only six-month isnever long enough for citizens to make a conclusion that speed limit has tremendouslyinfluenced the number of automobile accidents in this area. Above all, thedifferences in geography might be one of the most essential factors which wetalked about earlier. Therefore, the cause of increased incidents is not thechange of speed limit but the bad terrain conditions. If the roads could besafer, the accidents even may not happen at all.
To summarize it, the author ignored so manyfactors that a logical conclusion can never been made. Therefore, if thecitizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents onthe region's highways, instead of reducing Forestville's speed limit, the all extensiveand thorough consideration which including all factors should be taken. 这是老G题目，感觉论坛里很多大大们都练过把。。。 给位，给点建议把。。。 The author made a suspicion that the augment【这个author是谁？LZ自己还是题目的作者？如果是题目作者，这个argument的作者就是他本身，他怎么回去怀疑呢？此处表达很不清晰。另外，所要评判的是题目的内容，而不是题目文章本身。文章只是作者用来告诉考生时间的媒介。个人觉得这类客观文论，我们应该首要确保我们所作的文章只有一条线——那必然是文章的主线。抛开其文章的外衣，只看重所讲述的事件。我们要和作者argue的是他说的事件，没有必要因为语法或者表达的问题去繁琐表达。】of accidents in Forestvile during last six months were definitely caused by thespeed increased limit for vehicles traveling. Is that logic surely established?
【前一段只给出了一个推论，划线句却问的是逻辑关系。如果要对逻辑进行提问，是否应该先将事件进行一个简单而完整的复述更为恰当？】It might be no because the author ignored lots of other factors which couldinfluence the number of accidents in Forestvile.
First of all, the relative number"15%", as was stated by author,【到了第二段才知道author是文章作者。同时也映证LZ的开头存在了逻辑问题。】 could never tell us what exact numberof accidents occurred in Forestvile. It is very common that the digital 【digit】of accidents slightly varies during different months.【该段的驳斥很不清晰。我大概能理解LZ想表达的意思，15%的提升是整6个月的，每个月可能不同。但在我看来这并没有对文章有任何帮助，这类数据更好地是反映趋势问题。这六个月交通问题变化的趋势如何？上升趋势还是下降趋势？第一手数据并非我们能掌握的，与作者针锋相对是不明智的，要另辟蹊径。另一个就是LZ的表述问题，太简单！论据一定要细致，写的段落再多，但每一个写细致的，还不如一个详细的论据来得有用。必须具有说服力。】
Furthermore,【衔接词的问题....第一个还知道是first of all，第二个怎么就furthermore了呢？在正式表达中这样不是很规矩。secondly就好了，虽然简单，但却向reader表现了文章的逻辑性。】 the number of automobileaccidents in Elmsford decreased cannot prove anything【to support the author's position that F should change its limit speed to what it used to be，同样是表达问题，E城的事故数量不能证明什么？这个什么是必须要交代清楚的问题，作为写这篇文章的人，LZ你自己当然是清楚的，但你要表达给其他人看，你就必须要讲清楚，不然谁知道你这里的数据不能证明什么呢？】 because there are plenty of
【能用于可数的表达么？不太记得了，LZ可以自己查一查。建议如果在不清楚的时候可以用a large number of 或者 a majority of这类比较万能的表达】distinctions between Forestvile and Elmsford. 【谁告诉你E城和F城之间存在区别了？题目里又说么？没有说...这就是在无中生有了。诚然题目作者没有提到两城间的任何信息，那么两城间可能存在区别，也可能完全一样。怎么可以想当然地直接给出一个结论呢？此处能攻击的只是作者模糊了数据，他无法证明两城市之间不存在区别。然后再以退为进暗指两城可能是有区别的。】The situations ,like weathersituation and population factor, absolutely were different in different cities.Conclusion that the reason of increased accidents was the change of speed limitcan never been made by simple comparison of two totally different cities.
Moreover, the adaption to the change ofspeed limit should be accounted not only because people used to be fit with oldstandard of limit speed instead of new one, but also because only six-month isnever long enough for citizens to make a conclusion that speed limit has tremendouslyinfluenced the number of automobile accidents in this area. Above all, thedifferences in geography might be one of the most essential factors which wetalked about earlier. Therefore, the cause of increased incidents is not thechange of speed limit but the bad terrain conditions. If the roads could besafer, the accidents even may not happen at all.【这段开头看的时候觉得想法还不错，谈到了当地居民对新规定的适应问题，让我不禁眼前一亮，很多人都想不到的。结果LZ扯着扯着又回到了body第二段中关于地理地貌的问题。这就重复了...而且没有说服力。怎么就能得出一个结论认为是路面情况造成的交通事故呢？这很没有逻辑的...而且这个结论没有给出任何有说服力的理由或者例子...为何不沿着开头关于适应新规定的思路继续下去呢？为什么居民没有适应新规定就会造成交通事故？这个方向是很常见的，磨合期总是会有这样那样的问题，展开来细说一下，不失为一个好理由。】
To summarize it, the author ignored so manyfactors that a logical conclusion can never been made. Therefore, if thecitizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents onthe region's highways, instead of reducing Forestville's speed limit, the all extensiveand thorough consideration which including all factors should be taken.
第一篇能成文就是胜利，要改进的地方很多。首要地就是主观判断问题。这在argument中是大忌，argument切忌主观。题目说什么，我们就说什么，当然是变着方式说而不是照抄。以题目的语句来进行突破，找漏洞，攻击它的不合理处。另一个就是我们的目标问题。argument的目标是什么？很多人都在强调攻击，攻击，在攻击...我觉得这是不完整的...是片面的。攻击只是一小部分，更多的我们是要帮助作者去补充，去完善。找出其文论中不合理，偏颇之处，提出质疑，并加以完善。最重要的其实是完善。尽可能地去考虑所有的细节。所以，argument表述中最重要的部分依然是details。很显然，LZ的文章对于细节并没有太重视。提出了问题如何自圆其说？理由何在？要讲清楚说明白，这才是重点，而不是找出了问题，再几句话概括一下就ok了。你如何证明这个问题是存在的？这才是关键。 4# 咖啡盐 感谢版主大大春节期间仍能抽出时间给予我帮助，我得好好看看哈~ 4# 咖啡盐 盐哥，您批评的太有道理了，我得好好改，以后有神马不懂的还得麻烦版主大大啦~
页:
[1]