基础文法相关 |
| 【6】Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation. For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax. The minor flaws do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique. |
| 【5】The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions. The occasional flaws do not detract from the overall strong quality of the essay. |
| 【4】 the writer handles language and syntax adequately |
| 【3】The response demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing |
| 【2】In addition to the lack of analysis, the writing is weak. The organization is loose, although not illogical, and intended meaning is sometimes unclear |
| 【1】although the writer has relied heavily on the language of the prompt, it is clear that the writer has no real control of language, and |
| 【6】This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions. mastery of writing |
| 【5】The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing |
| 【4】The writer generally demonstrates adequate control of diction, syntax, grammar, and usage.Ideas are conveyed clearly, if mechanically. Some sentences, though, are awkwardly worded |
| 【3】The writing demonstrates limited language control.There are missing words, syntax errors, and several grammatical errors |
| 【2】Aside from a few minor errors, the writer has control over syntax, grammar, and the conventions of standard written English. |
| 【1】The attempt, though, is almost completely obscured by errors and the disorganized presentation of ideas. has severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure. contains a pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that results in incoherence |
| 【6】The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing. The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs. The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt. Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique. |
| 【5】It is clearly and logically organized and the writer's control of language is evident. The writer is generally in control of the elements of effective writing. Sentence variety and above-average diction are strengths in this response, although there are some awkward sentences |
| 【4】Control of language is better than adequate. The writing is clear, focused, and free of surface errors. |
| 【6】the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise. |
| 【4】The writer competently grasps the weaknesses of the argument. The ideas are clear and connected, but the essay lacks transitional phrases. Control of language is better than adequate. The writer achieves both control and clarity and ably conforms to the conventions of written English. |
| 【2】The response exhibits serious and frequent problems in sentence structure and language use. Errors -- word choice, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, punctuation -- are numerous and sometimes interfere with meaning. This essay earns a score of "2" because it demonstrates both serious linguistic weaknesses and failure to construct a critique based on logical analysis. |
| 【1】Language and usage are equally problematic. The few words that have been added, in combination with the words of the prompt, result in incoherence. |
| 【6】The writing is succinct, graceful, and virtually error-free, distinguished by impressive diction ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication. |
| 【5】The response exhibits generally good control of language, but awkward phrasing and inflated language sometimes result in a lack of clarity (e.g., "left being taught," "fields of major," "Bachelor's level degree"). |
| 【4】Organization is clear and logical, even better than adequate. The writer generally exhibits sufficient control, but awkward sentences and unclear pronoun referents (".their assumption would be a fair," ".it needs to have comparisons with other universities and their competing credentials") demonstrate only adequate fluency. |
| 【3】There is some competent reasoning in this limited response. However, tangential analysis, thin development, and an accumulation of both major and minor language errors mark it as plainly flawed. |
| 【3】There is a discernible organizational plan in this response, with an introductory paragraph, two analytical observations, and a concluding paragraph that offers a definitive rejection of the argument, repeats the main points, and goes on to offer advice. The writing, however, is less than competent. There are errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that limit the writer's ability to convey meaning clearly. |
| 【2】There are grammatical errors (e.g., "the particular field the two anonymous winners received their prize") and imprecise word choices ("members of the university," ".or moreso the information the article contains"). For the most part, though, the writer's meaning is clear. |
| 【1】In addition, there are severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure. In the few instances where the language appears controlled, the phrasing is borrowed directly from the argument topic. |
| 【6】This is a smoothly written, well-developed analysis in which syntactic variety and the excellent use of transitions make for a virtually seamless essay. |
| 【5】The essay is smoothly organized with few but appropriate transitions. The writing is strong with some variety in syntax. |
| 【3】The essay is clear; what errors there are never interfere with a reader's understanding, but there are frequent minor errors in language, syntax, and punctuation. |
| 【2】yet there is some variety in syntax and there is adequate control of both language and the elements of writing. However, even though the writing may be at a 4 score level, the absence of any kind of critique requires a score of 2. |
| 【1】Where the language makes sense and looks controlled, the writer has relied on the language and phrasing of the argument topic. Where the writer has relied on her or his own knowledge and command of language and syntax, we see serious and fundamental deficiencies. |
论点阐述相关 |
| 【6】The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay.provides an impressively full analysis |
| 【5】Unlike the sample 6 essay, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed |
| 【4】This competent critique claims that there are "numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased." However, the author discusses only two points. Although the essay appears at first to be well developed, there is much less analysis here than the length would suggest. The first third and last third of the essay are relatively insubstantial, consisting mainly of general summary statements The real heart of the critique consists of minimal development of the two points mentioned above.Therefore, although two important features of the argument are analyzed and the writer handles language and syntax adequately, the lack of substantial development keeps this critique from earning a score higher than 4. |
| 【3】The writer cites the drop in Elmsford's accidents but does not develop any of the reasons mentioned to account for the drop: "good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations."The writer then goes on to discuss Forestville and suggests that the speed limit "may not be the only factor," but this point is not developed either. Although the author appears to know that there is something wrong with the argument, he or she does not seem to know how to critique the argument in greater detail.The response demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing, but the analysis is so underdeveloped that it cannot earn a score higher than 3. |
| 【2】This seriously flawed critique presents only one idea relevant to an analysis of the argument topic: "The argument needs more examples and illustrations to get his point across to more people." Everything else in the essay is either summarizing the argument, speculating, or offering advice. The result is an essay that is clearly on topic but that provides no analysis of the line of reasoning in the argument. |
| 【1】 there is little or no evidence of the writer's ability to develop an organized response. |
| 【6】The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this." |
| 【5】Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized as a 6 essay. |
| 【4】However, this critique is stated in a confusing way and is not sufficiently developed. |
| 【3】This is the only analysis in the essay, marking it as "plainly flawed." The remaining five sentences fail to develop or add to this critique. Some are tangential ("I think that the community would have to meet again???") and others are irrelevant ("They look very indecisive and even controlling"). |
| 【2】The essay displays adequate control of language, but earns a score of 2 because it -- does not develop ideas and is illogical; and provides little, if any, relevant or reasonable support. |
| 【5】The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. |
| 【6】 Each paragraph develops the central premise: that the argument is uncompelling because it fails to use more valid indices of educational quality. |
| 【5】The analysis is clear, sensible, and logically organized, but development is neither as uniform nor as full as in a typical 6 essay. Nor is the response as precise as a 6. In the final paragraph, for instance, references to Claria's cost are vaguely described as "the socioeconomic status of the institution." |
| 【4】The second paragraph intelligently questions whether the "renowned" faculty members actually teach; if so, the essay notes, the claim that Claria offers "a quality education" would still only be true for some departments. This is a relevant critique, but thinly developed and described with less clarity than is expected of a 5 essay.The third paragraph continues to critique the argument's faulty logic. The writer points out that the employment statistic is deceptive since it hasn't been compared to rates at other universities, and that the argument never establishes that the "two recent graduates" won the Nobel Prize. These are apt criticisms, but minimally developed. |
| 【6】Each of these points is developed; together they are presented within the context of a larger idea: that while spending more money on advertising may be helpful, the company should "continue to invest in diverse, quality films." |
| 【5】Although more points are made here than are made in sample 6, each of the points made in the 6 essay is developed. That is not the case here. In this essay, each point is supported (by perhaps an additional sentence), but it is not further developed. |
| 【4】This essay identifies and analyzes some important flaws in the argument. Although the number of points mentioned is the same as that in the sample 5 essay, this response remains at the 4 score level because the features of the argument that are identified are not developed or supported.Ideas in the essay are conveyed well and clearly; the use of language and syntax are generally strong. But the essay's "bare-bones" analysis give it a list-like quality. |
| 【3】It makes two points, the first of which is undeveloped (paragraph 2) and the second of which (the remainder of the essay) is mainly discussion rather than analysis, although some meager analysis is present. The author also offers a questionable assumption of his or her own in stating that "the consumers like the movies they make." Overall, there is nothing incisive or convincing in this essay. It is loosely organized and not well developed. |
| 【2】The essay is characterized by a series of undeveloped paragraphs, |
首段相关： |
| 【5】After describing the argument as "weak," this strong essay goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. |
| 【4】After acknowledging that the argument "contains several flaws," this adequate response identifies a basic problem in the reasoning -- the letter writer's ambivalence about the desirability of maintaining Scott Woods as natural and undeveloped parkland. The writer recognizes that the argument's confused intentions are indirectly related to a root flaw in the argument: the assumption that construction of new buildings -- even school buildings -- would not impact the preservation of the parkland. Further, the writer does a competent job of explaining how both of these problems are the result of a lack of clarity about what constitutes a "natural parkland." |
| 【3】The opening sentences of this limited essay seem to agree with the argument, describing it as "well thought out." However, the writer begins to construct a critique in the fourth sentence, identifying and briefly describing one flawed assumption: if the community members want to retain natural parkland, they will not be able to do so by building a school on that land. |
| 【2】The first paragraph obliquely addresses the argument made in the topic, but stops short of logical analysis. |
| 【1】The first paragraph of this fundamentally deficient response is apparently attempting to summarize the issues and terms of the argument. The attempt, though, is almost completely obscured by errors and the disorganized presentation of ideas. |
| 【6】This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable." The author then develops the critique around three main points, each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail. |
| 【3】 The writer identifies sufficient grounds for judging the argument to be "unreasonable"; these range from generic ("There is no solid proof that indicates that there is such a relationship") to accurate but imprecise ("It could be the case that this toothpaste is best for capped teeth???"). The last two sentences, which complain that people who brush more should have fewer capped teeth, do not address the logic of the argument and are poorly reasoned. |
| 【2】The first two sentences of this seriously flawed essay credit the argument with being "logical" and "straight-forward." One expects this to lead into an uncritical acceptance of the argument, but, instead, the remainder of this brief response is apparently aimed at critiquing the argument. What follows, though, are three or four points that are either overly general and vague (e.g., no statistics are cited to support the argument) or illogical (e.g., "why did the writer decide to explain what capped teeth were?"). |
| 【1】This fundamentally deficient essay appears to understand the language of the argument, but uncritically accepts the reasoning. The writer demonstrates no evidence of being able to analyze the logic of the argument but, rather, agrees with it: "in order not to have capped teeth it is better not to use but use other toothpaste." |
| 【5】This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, observing that it "indicates a possible relationship" but that its conclusion "is premature." It raises three central questions that, if answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument: o What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters? o What is the usefulness of protective or reflective gear in preventing or mitigating rollerskating-related injuries? o What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes? |
| 【4】While the first paragraph of this adequate response merely summarizes the argument, the remainder of the essay identifies and analyzes several significant flaws in the argument. |
| 【3】The first sentence disputes the argument's claim, pointing out that Claria may not be the best "in all fields of studies." The rest of the paragraph, however, fails to add to or develop this critique. Indeed, the final sentence of the paragraph ("quality education is one that can fulfill a typical people requirement") is barely coherent. |
| 【2】The first sentence of this seriously flawed response expresses some praise for the argument reasoning, leading the reader to expect an uncritical acceptance of the argument. Instead, the following sentences are apparently aimed at challenging the argument. What follows, though, is neither an agreement with the prompt nor a logical critique. |
| 【6】Although the essay begins by stating that the argument "is relatively sound," it immediately goes on to develop a critique. |
| 【5】This strong essay begins with an attack on the advertising director of Silver Screen but quickly shifts to identifying major flaws in the argument. |
| 【2】The writer of this seriously flawed essay has adopted the position that she or he works for Silver Screen and that it is her or his job to present in expanded form the fallacious reasoning of the argument. In so doing, the writer turns the argument task into an issue-like discussion. The writer presents no analysis of the argument. |
分论点展开相关，布局谋篇相关 |
| 【6】The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland." Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions. This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park." |
| 【5】The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument: |
| 【5】Each point is described in a generally thoughtful way, but not as fully as in a 6 essay. |
| 【6】The writer probes each questionable assumption and offers alternative explanations, pointing out, for instance, that invitations for faculty to teach elsewhere may have been purposely arranged in order to temporarily remove them from campus and that the employed students may be "flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets." |
对于想承认topic正确的，以及态度相关 |
| 【2】This essay is seriously flawed. The first paragraph obliquely addresses the argument made in the topic, but stops short of logical analysis. The second paragraph agrees with the argument and supports its assumptions. In essence, the writer exhibits an uncritical acceptance of the argument. |
| 【2】This seriously flawed response, rather than critiquing the argument, suggests ways for adults and skate manufacturers to ensure that children wear protective clothing. In essence, the writer is uncritically accepting the argument. |
| 【1】This fundamentally deficient response uncritically accepts the reasoning of the prompt: "the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident..." There is no evidence, though, that the writer is able to understand or analyze the argument; what follows, except for a few additional words, merely copies the prompt. This two-sentence response is repeated - verbatim - over and over. |
| 欢迎光临 寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/) | Powered by Discuz! X2 |