写了10多篇AI,目测有跑题的趋势，求高手拍醒我啊！
后天考试了.. 我的文章基本都是白话连天的，很容易懂的，issue是清一色的正，反。 argument模板很严重，不知道有没有抄袭现象。不求高分，只求3+就行了。但是同学说我的issue没有按照要求，先论证reason 再论证conclusoin，不知道我这么写跑题不雅 大家拍拍我吧...这是 Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.[Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree ordisagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.]
法律不能解决所有问题，因为法律不能改变人类思维、我就写的就是法律可以制约人类行为，然而法律不能改变人类思维。
The speaker claims that laws cannot changewhat is in people's hearts or minds, then he conclude that many problems ofmodern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system. I concede thatlaws can give a standard for people's acting and constrain the people's badidea. However, people cannot change the human people's mind and their thought,so they cannot solve every society problem. In this way, some problem should besovled by enhancing the culture of society and give people sufficienteducation.
Admittedly, laws can constrainpeople's bad behaviour. Firstly, with the constraining force from the laws,people will show much more respect to others. Because the one who harms otherpeople or violate other people's fortune, such as stealing money or robbingothers, will be give a serious punishment, which will make the crimes fear.Secondly, laws make the marketing system more fairly. Everyone is avarice, andthe businessman is always the most avarice people. So, without the laws onbusiness, they will make the price of the special product as high as they want,and will never consider the buyers' thought, they will even make illegal andterrible tricks on the competition with other companies. Finally, union lawsmaintain the rightness and keep the world peace. A country who set a war toother others, will be criticised by the world and will punish by the othercountries.
However, since minds and thought cannot bechanged by laws, laws cannot solve
everyproblem in the society. Firstly, smoking have bad effect on other people'shealth, but the goverment cannot make law to forbide smoking. Because the lawswill impede the
business of
smoking factory, then it will has negativeeffect on the society economy. Moreover, music company's copyright is alwaysviolated by people who download free music from Internet. Although governmenthas already legislated some laws forbiding people download free music, thepeople's 'illegal' behaviour will never stop, because it's really a convenientway to enjoy the music and government cannot never punish the whole society.Finally, the problem of parent's bad treating to their children is nevercompletely solved by the laws. So the only way to solve these kinds of questionis to improve the education to the civil.
In sum, from the foregoing analysis, we cancon`clude that although obeying to laws will make people show respect toothers, maintain the society harmonious, and protect world peace, the people'savarice mind cannot be changed by laws. Therefore to better improve the cultureof the country and reduce the crime rate, we should not only force people obeyto the laws and punish powerfully illegal behaviour, but also the governmentshould focus on improving the education program to all human beings.
argumentA recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in seafood. Moreover, the majority of families in Bay City are two-income families, and a nationwide study has shown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be quite popular and profitable.
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.
我写的是3点。 能不能得4分啊？人们不一定喜欢吃seafood,因为数据可能不准确，调查餐馆人不多。就算准确，可能以前吃海鲜人很少，现在人也不多、人们不一定会符合国家趋势，喜欢吃健康食品。就算喜欢吃也不一定会去餐馆吃。就算seafood很流行，不一定新餐馆会流行。就算餐馆流行，不一定会赚钱，因为成本高。就算会赚钱，不一定未来也会维持。The author claims that a new Bay Cityrestaurant which is specializing in seafood will be popular among citizens andthe owner of it will earn a lot of money. To bolster this conclusion, theauthor cites several evidence to claim the seafood is popular in the city. Andhe also points out that few restaurants specializing seafood in the city.Although this argument seems reasonable at first glance, to better evaluate theargument, the author should provide a several additional evidence.
Thefirst piece of the evidene we should know is whether the seafood is popular inthe Bay City. The author claims that there is 30 percent increaing inconsumption of seafood dishes in Bay City. However, it is entirely possiblethat the previous consumption of seafood is too poor. For this matter, althoughthe consumption is increasing dramatically, the nowdays consumption is still bepoor. And there is no evidence to convince me the participant of the survey issignificant enough, perhaps the study only investigate a few restaurants. Theassumption is obviously dubious, unless the author can convince me that theseand other possible factors are unlikely.
Secondly, the author cites a nationwide trends which shows that the two-incomefamilies prefer eating healthily food in restaurant to eat home-making food,and at the end of it, the author conclude that the same family in Bay City willfollow such trends. To better evaluate the argument, we should learn about ifthe author's assumption is reasonable. Yet, it is totally possible that thefamily in Bay City don't earn much money as other cities, so they don't havethe extra money to eat in the restaurants outside. And even they prefer to eathealthy food, there is no evidence
to convince me that the food in restaurantis more healthy than home-making food.
For these matter, perhaps the family in BayCity will not follow the nationwide trends. Without considering and ruling outthese and other possible cases, the assumption may be too hasty to be credible.
Even assuming that the seafood is really popular in the Bay City, thereis no gurantee that the restaurant in Bay City will be profitable. The althourpoints out there is only few restaurants specializing seafood in Bay City, heconclude that if a new restaurant set up in the city, it will must attractpeople to come to enjoy the food. However, the author fails to take intoaccount the possibility that perhaps the people perfer to eat seafood cans ormake seafood dinner at home, which may be the reason why there is few seafoodrestaurant in the city. Besides, the profit is a function of both revenue andcost, even if the restaurant is popular in city, without the information aboutwhether the revenue will completely surpass the overall cost on building a newrestaurant, i cannot accept that the restaurant will be profitable. Even if thethe restaurant can be profitable at the moment, there is no gurantee thatseafood will remain popular in the future. Either scenaior, if true, willseriously undermine the author's assumption.
Insum, since the author cannot provide sufficient evidence and feasible reasoningto support the foregoing assumptions, the conclusion of his is unconvincing asit stands. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide morepersuasive evidence, reason more cogently and take every possible considerationinto account.
ARGUMENT
The author claims that a new Bay City restaurant which is specializing in seafood will be popular among citizens and the owner of it will earn a lot of money. To bolster this conclusion, the author cites several evidence to claim the seafood is popular in the city. And he also points out that few restaurants specializing seafood in the city. Although this argument seems reasonable at first glance, to better evaluate the argument, the author should provide a several additional evidence.
The first piece of the evidene we should know is whether the seafood is popular in the Bay City. The author claims that there is 30 percent increaing in consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City. However, it is entirely possible that the previous consumption of seafood is too poor. For this matter, although the consumption is increasing dramatically, the nowdays consumption is still be poor. And there is no evidence to convince me the participant of the survey is significant enough, perhaps the study only investigate a few restaurants. The assumption is obviously dubious, unless the author can convince me that these and other possible factors are unlikely.
Secondly, the author cites a nationwide trends which shows that the two-income families prefer eating healthily food in restaurant to eat home-making food, and at the end of it, the author conclude that the same family in Bay City will follow such trends. To better evaluate the argument, we should learn about if the author's assumption is reasonable. Yet, it is totally possible that the family in Bay City don't earn much money as other cities, so they don't have the extra money to eat in the restaurants outside. And even they prefer to eat healthy food, there is no evidence
to convince me that the food in restaurant is more healthy than home-making food.
For these matter, perhaps the family in Bay City will not follow the nationwide trends. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible cases, the assumption may be too hasty to be credible.
Even assuming that the seafood is really popular in the Bay City, there is no gurantee that the restaurant in Bay City will be profitable. The althour points out there is only few restaurants specializing seafood in Bay City, he conclude that if a new restaurant set up in the city, it will must attract people to come to enjoy the food. However, the author fails to take into account the possibility that perhaps the people perfer to eat seafood cans or make seafood dinner at home, which may be the reason why there is few seafood restaurant in the city. Besides, the profit is a function of both revenue and cost, even if the restaurant is popular in city, without the information about whether the revenue will completely surpass the overall cost on building a new restaurant, i cannot accept that the restaurant will be profitable. Even if the the restaurant can be profitable at the moment, there is no gurantee that seafood will remain popular in the future. Either scenaior, if true, will seriously undermine the author's assumption.
In sum, since the author cannot provide sufficient evidence and feasible reasoning to support the foregoing assumptions, the conclusion of his is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide more persuasive evidence, reason more cogently and take every possible consideration into account. 重点是issue呀 跑没跑题呢？。。。。。。{:3_65:}
The speaker claims that laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds, then he conclude that many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system. I concede that laws can give a standard for people's acting and constrain the people's bad idea. However, people cannot change the human people's mind and their thought, so they cannot solve every society problem. In this way, some problem should be sovled by enhancing the culture of society and give people sufficient education.
Admittedly, laws can constrain people's bad behaviour. Firstly, with the constraining force from the laws, people will show much more respect to others. Because the one who harms other people or violate other people's fortune, such as stealing money or robbing others, will be give a serious punishment, which will make the crimes fear. Secondly, laws make the marketing system more fairly. Everyone is avarice, and the businessman is always the most avarice people. So, without the laws on business, they will make the price of the special product as high as they want, and will never consider the buyers' thought, they will even make illegal and terrible tricks on the competition with other companies. Finally, union laws maintain the rightness and keep the world peace. A country who set a war to other others, will be criticised by the world and will punish by the other countries.
However, since minds and thought cannot be changed by laws, laws cannot solve every problem in the society. Firstly, smoking have bad effect on other people's health, but the goverment cannot make law to forbide smoking. Because the laws will impede the business of smoking factory, then it will has negative effect on the society economy. Moreover, music company's copyright is always violated by people who download free music from Internet. Although government has already legislated some laws forbiding people download free music, the people's 'illegal' behaviour will never stop, because it's really a convenient way to enjoy the music and government cannot never punish the whole society. Finally, the problem of parent's bad treating to their children is never completely solved by the laws. So the only way to solve these kinds of question is to improve the education to the civil.
In sum, from the foregoing analysis, we can con`clude that although obeying to laws will make people show respect to others, maintain the society harmonious, and protect world peace, the people's avarice mind cannot be changed by laws. Therefore to better improve the culture of the country and reduce the crime rate, we should not only force people obey to the laws and punish powerfully illegal behaviour, but also the government should focus on improving the education program to all human beings. 【新GRE AW】新手入门FAQ 第二条可以解答你
感觉issue 如果写两方面不容易走题，而且issue instruction 作用没有A instruction 来的重要。
看去 那个帖子看吧！
我是6.16 的，也是只求3.5了，可是打字慢的死了，目前只写4个I，1一个A
页:
[1]