有没有人出来说句话啊，是不是老师自己把自己禁掉了?
===================
因为发帖过于频密被误封了，明天恢复。竟然还可以编辑帖子~~~(tesolchina) 王老师，请问一下现在的作文互评活动还有吗？我正在准备ISSUE。谢谢老师~ 同主题练习进入第四周，我觉得大家练习已经达到一定的数量，是时候在质量方面下功夫。因此我建议下周开始暂停新的同主题练习，重新回到第一周的练习。对于中途加入的同学，可以照常写这道题，而对于已经写过这道题的同学，可以认真总结一下我的反馈并修改全文。同时，我会推出提纲写作练习以及针对出现频率较多的反馈问题的练习。总之，未来4周将会回到之前的题目上去。
希望接下来四周对过去四周反馈的梳理以及对全文的修改能够帮助大家取得更大的进步。同时，我的博士论文数据也可以得以补充。
nb
Argument 84 示范
本帖最后由 tesolchina 于 2015-6-21 21:57 编辑84) The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are known to eat amphibian eggs.)
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.
In the letter, the author cited the two studies conducted in 1975 and 2002 suggesting that the numbers of amphibians had decreased significantly and proposed that such decrease was caused by the introduction of trout. There are a number of alternative explanations for the two different results and the decrease of amphibian population involving issues such as study settings, environmental changes and other possible scenarios.
To begin with, the contrasting results of the two studies may not necessarily be due to the decline of amphibian population in the park. Maybe the 1975 study was conducted in the spring when the amphibians were more active and, as a result, a large number of amphibians of seven species were observed. On the other hand, perhaps the 2002 study was conducted during the winter when many amphibians disappeared due to hibernation or were difficult to spot due to inactivity. The different study settings might explain the gap between the number of species and amphibians observed in the two studies.
Even if there were a significant decline of amphibians in the park from 1975 to 2002, such decline may not result from the introduction of trout. The deterioration of the local environment (e.g. the contamination of water and the worsening of air quality caused by factories nearby) might be responsible for the amphibian population decline. Also the global climate change might also alter the park ecosystem where the amphibians found it not as friendly as back in 1975. Such factors other than the introduction of trout could be the real causes of the reduction of the amphibian population.
More directly related to the proposed explanation about trout is the possibility of cannibalism among the amphibians. Researches have suggested that, under certain circumstances such as space limitation and food shortage, animals of different species including amphibians may be engaged in cannibalism, i.e. eating members of the same or similar species. Maybe due to the fierce competition for living space and food, some amphibians ate their weaker counterparts or their eggs, leading to the significant decline of amphibian population and the number of amphibian species.
In conclusion, the argument has to be evaluated by taking into account the alternative explanations discussed above. Specifically, we need to look into why the results of the two studies were different and, if there were a decline of amphibian population, the different possible causes of such a decline. 好有趣的博士论文课题！！希望有机会成为一手数据{:t_0019:}
issue 59 快速写作练习示范
本帖最后由 tesolchina 于 2015-6-22 11:47 编辑issue 59
Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
7:10am
basic research unpredictable
satisfy curiosity and have fun
natural science
engineering
social science
7:14am
Scientists and researchers are a small group of elites with the best education and the abundant resources available to support their projects. Some people argue that with such privileges come great responsibilities in that scientists and researchers should focus their efforts on research projects that may bring the benefits to as many people as possible. I think this argument is reasonable for researchers in engineering. But when it comes to researchers in natural sciences and social sciences, such a utilitarian approach violates the basic principles of researches in these fields.
To begin with, researchers in engineering should work on projects that may improve the productivity of workers in different fields and ultimately benefit workers and consumers in a large scale.
- 提出例子：谷歌工程师通过对算法的优化更有效的处理互联网上的大量网页信息
- 解释：通过对网页信息的储存、索引，人们可以更加迅速的找到自己想要的资料来做决定
- 提出例子：谷歌推出热气球互联网计划，让更多的人有机会接入互联网
- 解释：工程师尤其应该关注弱势群体 处理数码鸿沟问题
Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to expect natural scientists to choose their research projects based on whether their research outcomes can help a great many people.
- 提出第一个原因：自然科学的研究首要目的是满足人类的好奇心
- 比如对宇宙起源的研究 大爆炸理论乃至弦理论 都是一群数学家和理论物理学家的游戏
- 这种研究对大众没什么帮助 但是却很重要 关系到人类在宇宙中的位置和命运
- 提出第二个原因：由于理论研究的结果不可预测
- 爱因斯坦提出相对论时并没有预见到可以用来开发核能
- 核能对人类的贡献与威胁需要另一群人来决定（工程师、政客、公民？）
Social scientists concerned with practical problems at local level should not burden themselves with the impossible job of helping people around the world.
- 解释观点：社会科学研究者需要关注本土问题 甚至弱势群体
- 提出例子： 比如中国同性恋问题研究者
- 解释例子： 同性恋问题只涉及少数人 不代表不重要 不需要研究
- 提出例子： 我研究的中国学生GRE写作问题
- 解释例子： 只是少数精英可以受益
- 总结：社会科学家不要不切实际想拯救世界，要做一些具体的小问题
7:36am
想不到写这个详细的提纲也花了这么多时间，可能是英汉夹杂反而不如直接写英语那么流畅。这个示范里，我运用了分类讨论，将科研分作社会科学、自然科学和工程研究三类。另外，我的汉语提纲具体到了句子的层面，以列点形式展开，而不是写一大段汉语。 希望大家在写提纲时也考虑这样做。
tesolchina 发表于 2015-6-21 07:40 static/image/common/back.gif
issue 59
Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely t ...
看了老师的分类方法我受到了很多启迪~get~！
我在看到论题的时候，没有想到像老是这样将科研分作社会科学、自然科学和工程研究三类。
我是从这个建议的后果来看的，我的三个论点分别是
1. 有些人认为应该有利于大多数人，这样一些什么好处。
2. 但是我们也要研究少数人相关的research，这样从历史中学习，有利于现在
3.要研究少数人相关的research，解决他们的问题，促进社会公平
不知道这样的分类方法是否可取~~
我的作文地址https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=1840324&pid=1779595641&fromuid=3626719
也在老师的主题帖下有回复，等待老师解答~~{:rose:} tesolchina 发表于 2014-11-11 15:42 static/image/common/back.gif
The first sentence of each middle paragraph should fulfil two functions, to briefly remind the reade ...
Despite这句承接上段谈到的大城市对于文化传统的重要性，又引出本段的话题：政府资金不应该在大城市投入过多，因为它们还有其他的财政来源。
On the other hand这句与上段提出的“大城市不应是政府资助的首选对象"相呼应，顺承性地提出"小城镇和农村地区的文化项目才是应该被资助的对象“。
老师，你好，针对本文的第二段举例我还有些疑问。题目中的reason是cultural traditions are preserved and generated in cities，但您在这一段的首句提到“major cities are important sites for celebrating cultural traditions”，我觉得preserve&generate 与 celebrate 的概念是不同的。大城市可以通过广告等方式来弘扬文化传统，但是它不是保留和产生文化传统的主要地方，而是不断将传统文化格式化、溶解掉的地方。这样看来，第二段的立论好像就站不住脚了，不知道这种想法对不对，请老师指正。 Narcissus-art 发表于 2015-6-26 18:14 static/image/common/back.gif
Despite这句承接上段谈到的大城市对于文化传统的重要性，又引出本段的话题：政府资金不应该在大城市投入过 ...
我把主题句改了
There is no doubt that major cities are important sites for preserving, generating and celebrating cultural traditions.
这样看起来也可以吧 tesolchina 发表于 2014-12-30 08:13 static/image/common/back.gif
57 The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are sig ...
王老师，对于你写的这个范文我有如下疑问：
（1）问题：我感觉前两个分论点和第三个分论点前后不搭。
原因：老师你这个题目是拆分开来写，先写现在的人和以前的人的不同（indeed different），然后写研究历史的主要好处(main benefit)（历史有借鉴意义）。那么，我觉得既然人跟人是不同的，同样的用于不同的人身上会有不同的效果啊，那历史如何可以借鉴呢？如果历史可以借鉴，那么古今的人应该有相似的地方才可借鉴，比如人性。
（2）问题：在老师的issue的6种题型及基本布局套路中说这类题目属于“是否同意命题及不同情况下是否正确”，要分情况讨论“under conditions A or B, the statement is true because …; when conditions C or D are met, the statement does not hold true because … ”。但是你范文中好像没有是不是？也就是说也可以不分情况讨论？
王老师，对于审这道issue 15题我也有审题方面的困惑：
（1）问题：题目讨论的重点应该是在main benefit of history study 还是在是否people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times呢？还是两个都讨论呢？
（2）问题：对于history 主要指的是history of people而不是其他如science是吧？
老师，我又想了一个提纲，还是我的观点是同意这个观点。请老师帮忙看下我的中文提纲是不是离题了？
总论点：同意，历史研究不是对事件表象的研究，而是对本质的研究。认识到人是相似的非常重要。
分论点1：正式基于对人本质是相似的认识，我们才能从一系列的历史事件中总结出规律。
分论点2：正是因为人是相似的，我们才能把这些从历史中总结出的规律用于现在的人。Such as in political field
分论点3：正是人是相似的，对真善美的追求，文化才能传承，such as moral norms.
老师，我的问题有点多……如果老师有时间就解答一下，谢谢老师啦~~ dingchenchen 发表于 2015-6-29 21:40 static/image/common/back.gif
王老师，对于你写的这个范文我有如下疑问：
（1）问题：我感觉前两个分论点和第三个分论点前后不搭。
...
这道题的要求是
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
这道题我没有分情况讨论 而是分不同的角度讨论 题目这里要求是consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true
我从生理和信念两个角度指出过去和现在的人是不同的 既然是不同的 题目所说的dispel illusion自然不成立 也就不是main benefit
既然不是main benefit 那么main benefit是什么 那就可以自由发挥了 所以就出现第三点和前面有点脱节的情况
至于你所说的
那么，我觉得既然人跟人是不同的，同样的用于不同的人身上会有不同的效果啊，那历史如何可以借鉴呢？如果历史可以借鉴，那么古今的人应该有相似的地方才可借鉴，比如人性。
这个推理是不对的
至于你的提纲
对事件表象的研究，而是对本质的研究
看到这些词我基本可以认定这样写会废掉