寄托家园留学论坛

标题: Argument 33 Q2 求高人指点 [打印本页]

作者: as9as1as7 时间: 2011-9-17 10:08:58 标题: Argument 33 Q2 求高人指点

In this memo, the author argues thatthere's no need to build additional generating plants to satisfy the energyneeds in his or her area. To strengthen this argument, the author cites arecent survey indicating home owners are more and more willing to save energyand the fact that energy-efficient home appliances like refrigerator andconditioner are being marketed and new technologies for energy-saving homeheating are readily available. Based on these facts, the author anticipates thepossible decline in demand for electricity and thus draws the conclusion.However, the argument, in detail, is not as convincing as it seems, for it lieson some unwarranted assumptions.

To begin with, the author assumes thesurvey and the facts cited precisely reflect the situation in local area.However, the survey conducted among home owners nationwide may reflect theiractual willing. Perhaps people in the area of this generating plant actuallydon't have as strong wishes as the survey indicates. Moreover, the facts in homeappliances and new home heating technologies may prevail in developed areas ofthe country, which is not the case in this area. To strengthen this, the authorshould provide specific information of local area in those aspects.

Furthermore, even if those survey and factsprecisely reflect the situation in this area, one cannot hastily make inferencethat local demand for electricity may decline slightly. It seems that theauthor unfairly assumes people in this area will utilize those energy-savingappliances and technologies in the foreseeable future and the electricity forhome use occupies a dominant percentage. However, it is entirely possible thatthe energy-efficient appliances are so expensive that many people in that areacannot afford them, thus still choosing ordinary appliances of lower prices.Also, perhaps the new technology for home heating to save energy still have itsshortcomings and inconveniences, for example, passive solar heating is notfeasible in rainy or snowy days. What's more, the percentage of energy use inthis area is unknown. It is quite possible that sharp rise in electricity ofindustrial use will dramatically increase the local electricity use.

Finally, the author makes another hastyassumption that the three plant generating plants will function well in thefuture to meet the energy needs. Still, this remains unsubstantiated. Perhapsthe old devices in those plants manage to meet the energy needs with difficultyin the past 20 years and are in desperate need for updating or construction ofnew plants. Without details about the function of the existing generatingplants, one cannot confirm that building new generating plants is unnecessary.

In sum, the author bases his or herargument on unwarranted assumptions, which compromise the argument'sreliability as well as validity. In order to refine it, the author shouldprovide accurate information on those energy-efficient appliances and technologiesand the actual application of them. Besides, local use of electricity apartfrom home use should also be taken into accounts to estimate the demand in thefuture. Finally, whether there is need to update the devices or construct newgenerating plants needs more investigations.

有几个问题：1，argument文章语言该怎么提高？虽然它的语言模板比较固定，但是我觉得在具体的写作过程中，精准性还是欠缺很多，看什么材料能够提高一些呢？
2，对于文章中词汇的重复，大家一般都是怎么处理的？有些出现在题目中的词组，开头引用一次，中间论述时还要转述或者引用，就感觉占去了文章中不小的篇幅。还有这篇文章在写的时候的一个困惑，题目中也没说是哪个地方的发电厂，然后我只能在文章中写什么in this area或者local area之类的，重复很多,大家觉得该怎么改改？

作者: as9as1as7 时间: 2011-9-17 10:33:12

不好意思，题目刚才忘记贴了，现在补上
The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company. Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners, that are almost twice as energy efficient as those sold a decade ago. Also, new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating. Therefore, the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase—and may decline slightly. Since our three electric generating plants in operation for the past twenty years have always met our needs, construction of new generating plants will not be necessary.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

作者: 咖啡盐 时间: 2011-9-18 17:36:13

有几个问题：1，argument文章语言该怎么提高？虽然它的语言模板比较固定，但是我觉得在具体的写作过程中，精准性还是欠缺很多，看什么材料能够提高一些呢？
2，对于文章中词汇的重复，大家一般都是怎么处理的？有些出现在题目中的词组，开头引用一次，中间论述时还要转述或者引用，就感觉占去了文章中不小的篇幅。还有这篇文章在写的时候的一个困惑，题目中也没说是哪个地方的发电厂，然后我只能在文章中写什么in this area或者local area之类的，重复很多,大家觉得该怎么改改？

Q1、语言不是关键，文章的内容才是关键。所以没必要先过多纠结语言表达，先要保证思维的完整性。把一篇文章写清楚，说明白。另外，语言不是说提高就提高的，这是靠积累的。作文考究的是对单词和语法的综合应用，这些不是被那么些个单词或者语法就能够提高的，要靠平时多运用，考试的时候没这么多时间去思考该用什么词比较合适，完全就是平时的积淀。

一个比较偷巧的办法就是多运用句子与句子衔接上的transition words，一篇好的文章，流畅的衔接是必不可少的，而且这方便面也是比较容易提升和掌握的，虽然不能说融会贯通，但是区区500字左右的文章还是hold住的。

精准性问题也比较好解决。Argument的宗旨就是看到什么写什么，不要靠个人主观去猜测，或者凭借作者的字里行间去推断，从题目中读到了什么，那就是什么，直接表达即可。

Q2、你担心的这个问题不是什么大问题，没必要过去去在意。表达形式有能力换就采用多种，没能力就按自己最熟悉的来，一切都要建立在保持文章文意和流畅性。

作者: as9as1as7 时间: 2011-9-19 09:12:02

3# 咖啡盐 谢谢指点

作者: zhangwzhong 时间: 2011-9-19 17:25:23

刚刚也练习了一下这篇Argument，有些想法一起分享，一起进步 :-)
首先觉得你的第一段，没有很好的概括原文的内容，也没有很好的起到一个开宗明义、引起下文的作用。
我的理解大概是这样的：
作者为了证明不需要建新的发电站，理由有二：
1. 这个地区用电量不会增加；
2. 现有的发电站未来也能满足电力需求；
证明第一个理由，他引用了三个证据：1. 报告显示大家想省电；2. 现在厂家生产能效高的电器；3. 新的科技可以省电；
证明第二个理由，他的证据是过去20年发电厂都正常满足用电需求。
因此这里面的假设就需要我们一点点拆穿了。
由于第一段写得不是很清楚，接下来的论述层次有点小混乱（个人感觉，说错勿怪），但论证的思路是清晰可见的！很多想法我都没想到，看到你的文章也很受启发，比如意愿的强度，天气对太阳能的影响等~
对于你的两个问题，我和楼上的朋友有些相似的想法：argument的语言是为了说清想法，只要思路清楚，罗技连贯，把它说清楚我觉得就足够了，毕竟我们只有30分钟，来不及过多修饰词藻；词语重复的话，能用同义词替换就尽量替换，不能的话，句子延长缩短，不同的说法变变吧~
我现在也在学习写作，渴望提高，如果说得不好，希望指证:-)

作者: zhangwzhong 时间: 2011-9-19 17:26:20

分享一下，希望大家也能给我一些宝贵意见，谢谢！
1. 报告显示：人们渴望省电；（渴望一定能做到吗?）
2. 生产商生产的电器较十年前相比，能效更高；(用户是否已经使用新型电器？)
3. 替代性能源手段，绝缘与太阳能减少家庭供热耗电；（新科技是否普遍投入应用？）
因此耗电需求不会提高。（人口增加，商业区兴建，城市地区发展）
耗电量持平的话，则不需要兴建发电厂。（备用发电站，发电站老化）

The writer asserts that there is no need to build up new generating plants and he divides his argument into two parts: 1) the electricity need in this area will remain the same as usual; 2) the current plants can meet the same quantity of electricity needed. In both parts of his arguments, there are in fact a lot of assumptions and holes that are not well substantiated and required to scrutinize further.
To substantiate his first statement, the writer cites 3 pieces of evidence. He firstly states that people there are increasingly eager to save energy, and presumes that they will succeed in conserving electricity. However, we cannot deduce such a conclusion simply from an eager or will, and actually many good wills are not strong enough to be fulfilled at last. Then he states the new efficient electrical apparatus sold by the manufacturers can definitely help decrease the electricity consumption, with an assumption that all people there are using the new efficient equipments already. There is no evidence for his assumption, however, and based on our common knowledge, people always will not change their electrical apparatus until the service life of them nearly runs out. Finally, he suggests some new technologies for efficient heating, but he fails to explain whether these technologies are available or acceptable in this area. As I know, the solar energy cannot be efficiently used in some area at high latitude, and the cost of insulation heating system may be expensive to the residence there. if his assumption is invalid and these high techs cannot be applied, his argument, therefore, is not convincing at all.
Presuming the first assertion is valid and true, the writer makes another assumption that the generating plants will always running well to meet the electricity need of this region. The only evidence he provided is that these three plants have function well and met the needs for the past 20 years. However, many factors have been dismissed by him. What if the population increases? What if the extension and building of new shopping areas? Even though the city or the area can maintain its original scale and stop develop, the three plants have worked for 20 years. They may malfunction at any time and therefore fail their job, and the pollution generated by these old plants should also be considered as a issue. With all these things in consideration, the writer’s 2nd assertion seems weak and unconvincing.
T sum up, the writer needs to provide exact evidence to explain his assumptions: to explicate clearly why the electricity in this area can maintain at a same level in the future and why the old plants can still fulfill the electricity need.

作者: as9as1as7 时间: 2011-10-1 11:13:57

6# zhangwzhong
呵呵，不好意思，前段时间太忙，没怎么来上论坛，没能及时回复你的帖子~~
我也一直在想这个argument的第一段怎么梳理逻辑层次的问题。你的文章让我很有启发，尤其是开头文章结构的梳理
但是，个人觉得结尾部分是否需要改改？我觉得文章的结尾很难写，感觉改写的都在文章中就明确了，此时是否需要再归纳一下？

鉴于新G的argument每篇都有写作的引导词，像这种unstated assumption的，是否在文章的段落组织上体现这些缺点都是围绕assumption展开的？个人觉得每段开头用一些assumption, assume. presume之类的词可能好点（当然行文也得围绕它来展开）。

还望指正

欢迎光临寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/)