在某宝上花了点钱找人批改,被评价“Your statements are heavily dependent on commonly used and abused templates. Strive for originality.” 肿么办?最可怕的是我写的时候也没有刻意想用模板。
我发过去的文章如下
The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client.
"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."
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.
The consult investment firm gives a seemingly reasonable prediction on the increasing demand for heating oil and recommendation recommends on investing in Consolidated Industries, a home heating oil retail-related business. However, some unwarranted certain assumptions alluded in this deduction need to be thoroughly discussed and probably undermine before the validity of this suggestion can be established.
First of all, the argument is based on an optimistic belief that oil would remain dominant in the heating market for in the future. Believing in the dominance of heating oil, the firm considers the need of heating as the demand of heating oil. Though oil is has been traditionally used as the major fuel for heating, it is still an uncertainty whether or not it would be superseded by other sources, like electricity, which has been used for update in southern cities in China during the 2000s. When Once an alternative prevails in the market, the consumption of heating oil faces a potential withdrawal decline, and the revenue of expected investment profit in heating oil retain company might evaporate as well.
To stress the need of for heating, it assumes is assumed that there is no decrease in cold days. Provided that there would be 90 days with below-normal temperatures for recent in the coming years, it asserts this trend positively contributes to an ascending increasing demand for heating oil, neglecting to verify compare the recent trend with comparison with historical statistics. For example, the northeastern America perhaps had suffered 95 or even more days of frigid temperature before the last heating season. Without ruling out the other possible interpretations of the climate tendency, the support to the final conclusion will be weakened becomes weak.
Additionally, it is also implies implied that new homes undoubtedly indicate new clients of heating oil. As it announces, many Many newly built houses, are connected with population growth, and this would be another is also a reason for the increased use of heating oil utilization. Whereas this This projection, however, is easily voided by outer forces, such as the economic crisis in 2008. Despite the population a growth in population, plenty of pretty new houses were abandoned in such situation. Therefore, this assumption lacks stability.
Moreover, the assumption that the profit of Consolidated Industries is positively related to the demand of for heating oil is beneath the investment recommendation. While Consolidated Industries has its home heating oil retail shops, its market shares and operating rate is operational rhythm are unreported, illustrating uncontrollable risks in investment pay-off. In other words, extra evidences to substantiate the link are required for heartening convincing investors.
Feeble assumptions on the unchanged heating oil predominance, constant or more cold days, increasing newly-house consumers newly-built houses, and demand-contributed profit of Consolidated Industries debase the soundness of this recommendation. Investors should pay adequate cautions exercise extreme caution when making decisions. 作者: caroe 时间: 2015-9-13 23:59:39
第二段,第一句明显语病 “for in the future”,去掉for; belief 本身就是褒义,前面加optimistic 冗余。 Remain dominant 感觉不是很好。第二句句义完全在重复第一句,包括用词。第三句语病“is has been”是个什么? 前半句又重复了第一二句的意思。Uncertainty 与 whether or not 重复。假设里面用”would be ? “ Sources” 应该是用“resources” 更合适吧?sources 有源头的含义,resources 是资源。Like 用的不太好,建议用 for instance, 并且增加例子,如solar power, nuclear power. 其次 用electricity 比较含糊,因为electricity 可以本身还是从fossil oil 来的,也可能是solar power 转化,或hydro energy.其最终形式大部分是电。电本身并不是直接能源。中国的例子不太恰题, 可以有很多水能核能的例子。During the 2000s 有点chinglish, 可以换在since 2000, 或last fifteen years. When 和Once 词义重复, 去when. Prevails in the market…只用prevails 就可以了。 “the consumption of heating oil faces a potential withdrawal decline ” the consumption of heating oil might/ decline. “Revenue” 感觉不如benefit.
第三段第一句语病,亲爱的, implies implied 是个什么啊?!many many 之类的不要出现在正式写作中好不好?newly built houses… 用个new buildings 就可以了啊!connected 这儿不对,是attribute. This would be another is also… 语病啊,亲!This is another..就够了。Increased use of…冗余,只用increase of …就可以了,你不说use人也知道是use 不是eat啊!还有“utilization”。。。Whereas this this 是个什么鬼?!whereas, however, 想好了用一个就够了。2008在哪个地区啊? 全球吗? Plenty of pretty 还能不能更啰嗦些? New houses were anandoned ?在哪啊?例子空洞,不具说服力,无法论证本地区的人们不会来住啊。
**************************
The investment firm gives a seemingly reasonable prediction on the increasing demand for heating oil and recommends investing in Consolidated Industries, a home heating oil retail-related business. However, certain assumptions need to be thoroughly discussed before the validity of this suggestion can be established.
First of all, the argument is based on an optimistic belief that oil would remain dominant in the heating market in the future. Though oil has been traditionally used as the major fuel for heating, it is still an uncertainty whether or not it would be superseded by other sources, like electricity, which has begun to put into use in southern cities in China during the 2000s. Once an alternative prevails in the market, the consumption of heating oil faces a potential decline and the expected investment profit might evaporate as well.
To stress the need for heating, it is assumed that there is no decrease in cold days. Provided that there would be 90 days with below-normal temperatures in the coming years, it asserts this trend positively contributes to an increasing demand for heating oil, neglecting to compare the recent trend with historical statistics. For example, northeastern America perhaps had suffered 95 or even more days of frigid temperature before the last heating season. Without ruling out the other possible interpretations of the climate tendency, the final conclusion becomes weak.
Additionally, it is also implied that new homes undoubtedly indicate new clients of heating oil. Many newly built houses are connected with population growth and this would be another reason for the increased use of heating oil. This projection, however, is easily voided by outer forces such as the economic crisis in 2008. Despite the population growth, plenty of pretty new houses were abandoned in such situation. Therefore, this assumption lacks stability.
Moreover, the assumption that the profit of Consolidated Industries is positively related to the demand for heating oil is beneath the investment recommendation. While Consolidated Industries has its home heating oil retail shops, its market shares and operational rhythm are unreported, illustrating uncontrollable risks in investment pay-off. In other words, extra evidences to substantiate the link are required for convincing investors.
Feeble assumptions on the unchanged heating oil predominance, constant or more cold days, newly-built houses, and demand-contributed profit of Consolidated Industries debase the soundness of this recommendation. Investors should exercise extreme caution when making decisions. 作者: 岳然 时间: 2015-9-15 22:08:01
1. oil as heating fuel might not keep dominant in the market. OK这没什么问题
2. 开头先说了assumptions of no decrease in cold days,刚以为你要说这个不成立,结果后面一句就直接转掉了,导致这一段的主旨不明确。后面说90 days with below-normal temperature并不意味着对heating oil的需求会增加。这个观点是没问题的,但你给的反例是,也许该地区以前也一直是超过90天。好吧,其实这个反例本身还是说得通的,但是在这篇文章里,出题者问你的是assumptions,那么这个conterargument放在这里就略显牵强了。其实这里一个很明显的assumption就是:“居民一定会在below-normal temperature时开暖气”,也许人家非常耐寒(很有可能,毕竟住久了习惯了),只有到了极端低温才开暖气,而极端低温的天数可能很少。