1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by 中原527--战胜自己

中原527UID：2707367

啊啊啊啊啊，我明明写了三页了，咋第三页的东东都不见了！！！！！！！！！！！！

中原527UID：2707367

我也丢楼了还是作文和intro翻译哎
kulewy531 发表于 2009-12-1 13:53

验证了草木写作贴的提到的一条，一定要存档...........
有很多东西由于不能用WORD直接贴到帖子上，要在帖子里面现改，所以我很多总结都是直接在帖子上面改没存档......................
杯具.....
以后再也不嫌麻烦了，一定要复制到WORD，再在帖子里面慢慢改......................

中原527UID：2707367

TOPIC: ARGUMENT206 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily Newspaper.
"Throughout the country last year, as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth-league softball and soccer, over 80,000 of these young players suffered injuries. When interviewed for a recent study, youth-league softball players in several major cities also reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games. Furthermore, education experts say that long practice sessions for these sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. Since the disadvantages apparently outweigh any advantages, we in Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine."

WORDS: 384

TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-1 13:58:06
In this argument, the author concludes that Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine. To support his conclusion, the author points out that over 80,000 of young players suffered injuries throughout the country last year. And he also cites that youth-league softball players reported pressure form coaches and parents in several big cities and these sports take away time for academic activities. However, the argument suffers a few flaws.
To begin with, the author falsely assumes that children under nine in Parkville suffer injuries just like those throughout the country.
First, the child in Parkville may have different interests in sports, such as basketball. Second, the author fails to provide the number of children who is under nine and suffered injuries（题干已经提供数据了，不是像此文所说的没有提供数据，措辞不严谨，应该是说没有提供更为详细可靠的数据比如百分比之类） throughout the country last year. Perhaps only a few children under nine suffered from injuries. Third, the author fails to prove that the children get injuries because of taking sports rather than other possibilities(这里可以扩充一下其他的可能性，例如意外事故等). All these scenarios, if true, will undermine the author's conclusion.
In addition, the author unjustifiably claims that children in Parkvill receive pressure from coaches and parents. The study is interviewed in several big cities, we are not informed whether Parkville is a big city.（此论据薄弱） Even assuming that it is a big city, the author still cannot apply the study to Parkville. There are maybe differences between Parkville and other cities. Perhaps Parkville has stricter regulations to coaches, or perhaps the competition in Parkville is not so serious.
Furthermore, it is unwarranted to claim that these sports take away time from academic activities. First, we are not informed how many hours are used for sports and academic activities. Perhaps sports time is far less than the time for academic activities. Second, sports may help to do academic activities better. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is unwise to discontinue organized competition.
Last but not least, the author suggests too hastily to discontinue all the competition. Even if some competition is dangerous, some others may be good for children. Common sense tells me that children need to take sports. The disadvantage of discontinue may outweigh the advantage.
To sum up, the author fails to substantiate the conclusion that Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine. The author need further information and reliable study to make the conclusion convincing.
1语言简单了点：Fails to 句式滥用，first second third出现了两回了，处处都可以看到The author claims/suggests/assumes,有凑字数嫌疑 但回头看看我写的第一篇阿狗，也和这人差不到哪里去...这人还是限时，我还是花了好几个小时....
2论据感觉不充分，比如Parkvill城市的大小说明了什么问题我看得不是很明白。
3总结没有很好地把作者反对的观点和赞同之处结合起来。

中原527UID：2707367

2.限时argument131，过两天就考了，请求指点
TOPIC: ARGUMENT131 - The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in Tria Island.

"The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals. Its regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, but fishing is not banned. Currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining, a situation blamed on pollution. In contrast, the marine sanctuary on Omni Island has regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omni and Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. Clearly, the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not pollution. Therefore, the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni."
WORDS: 314
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-7-31 21:03:35

In this argument, the author concludes that the Tria Island should abandon its regulations and adopt Omni's in order to restore its fish populations and protect all of its marine wildlife. To support his conclusion, the author cites the example of Omni Island which has regulations that ban fishing. However, the argument suffers from a few flaws.

To begin with, the author assumes too hastily that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters should blame on overfishing.（应该是 the decline should be blame for overfishing.）
Firstly, there are many other nature factors which would influence the fish population, such as water temperature, spaning season(这词儿啥意思，百度谷歌没查到….), extreme weather phenomenon and so forth. Secondly,
the author fails to prove that the banned actions have not happened. If the water is polluted, the fish population will probably decrease.
Besides, the oil may also float from other place. All these sceranios（scenanios）, if true, will undermine the author's conclusion that overfishing should be responsible for decline in fish populations.

In additon , even assuming that overfishing leads to the decline in fish populations, the author falsely concludes that Tria should follow the example of Omni. The author overlooks the differences between the two Islands. There might be disparity in Island weather, water quality, fish sorts and so on. These defferences will make Omni's regulations unsuccessful in Tria. What's more, the author doesn't prove that the fish caught in Tria is within 10 miles of Tria, (想说明什么？这里可展开说明一下)which will undermine the conclusion.

Further more, even assuming that the Omni's regulation will success in Tria, the argument still has some flaws. First, the Omni's regulations might not be the best one. There are may be better ones such as stricker ban on dumping. Second, the Omni's regulation cannot guarantee to protect all the marine wildlife.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his conclusion that Tria should adopt Omni's regulations. To support his conclusion, the author should provides more information.
看完后最直观的感受，和第一篇几乎一模一样，一翻，果然是同一个人……….
还是和第一篇一样的毛病
语言单调疲乏，有几处用词小错误，可能不伤大雅，虽然论坛里面再三强调思想重要语言其次，但同一个词再三地用，这也太单调了吧
辩驳之处只是蜻蜓点水，泛泛而论，没有深入驳倒。（看原文红字批）论点有重复之处，一开始就提出自然问题，到后来拿Omni例子时又把自然问题摆出来了，逻辑不严密（看粗体字）。

中原527UID：2707367

3.Argument 35 首次限时，欢迎猛拍 35. The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia. "Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia." ------------------ 正文 In this summary the author concludes that the number of headaches suffered by average citizen of Mentia will continue to decline. To justify this argument, the author show me some evidence that many foods are naturally rich in salicylates(S), which are similar to aspirin, a medicine used to treat headache. Moreover, the author cites a twenty – year study, amid which the average number of headaches is reported declining. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals many logical and statistic problems that will without doubt render it unconvincing. （句式变换，简单复述题干的关键之处） To begin with, the author’s argument relies on a hasty assumption that S is the very factor leading to the decline of the number of headaches. However, no certain proof has been shown to confirm this connection. （很好，一开始就直击薄弱之处）There is a high possibility that it’s some other chemicals that added in foods curing the headaches, but not S. And it’s also possible that even though S is curing the headaches, the consequence is not apparent enough for a survey to check out. Even if the connection between the use of S and decline of headache is confirmed, （紧接联系上文，符合ETS全文逻辑严密的要求）the author fails to show the details of the twenty-year study to prove it representative. First, the number of people who has taken the survey is not given. Perhaps the sample is too small to be considered valid. Furthermore, the situation of these sample people is also unknown. It’s possible that the symptom of the headache of the people is not severe enough, and that it’s some other factors resulting in the recovery of their headache, even that it’s cure all by themselves. Even if the two factors that will lead to the failure of the argument are both proved, the author still cannot prove that the trend of using S as preservative will continue. It’s totally possible that all the companies tend to give up using S as preservative for some reasons, like recent discovery or governmental restricts. Or perhaps, there will be some other chemicals found to be more efficient than S as preservative, which will without doubt result in the decline of using S.（此论据好像与题干关系不大，题干本身就指出食品公司将会使用S药物，会导致头痛率的下降，而这里是将来出现其他的药物来代替S） In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stand in many facets. Firstly, to strengthen the argument, the author must show me more evidence to prove that it is the S which added as preservative that cure people’s headache, not other chemicals. Secondly, to convince me, the author also have to show more details about the twenty – year study to prove it representative. Finally, the author also have to give adequate evidence to show that the tendency of using S as preservatives will continue. Without ruling out all the other possibilities, the argument will never convince me. 行文流畅，一环扣一环，除了最后一点辩驳有点薄弱之外 语言丰富，基本符合了ETS5分标准，好吧，我经验不足，最起码可以超过3.5分吧

https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=989214&highlight偶然搜到此贴跑去拜读了

中原527UID：2707367

在我看来觉得此文很好了，再看666的点评泪奔…………….
先分析下你的提纲，的确题目有说到这4点，但是这4点并非全部来支持high quality的，实际上题目也有在最后一句提到过be economical. 此外我们在分析所谓的quality的时候，最好不要笼统的宣称blabla是为了提高quality.毕竟quality也是有很多种的，比如服务，器械，营业人员的水平，环境是否清洁等等。
所以作者的理由应该是这样：
1.医院治愈时间长短和治愈比率，作者实际上是想说的“医术”和“医疗器具”的优势
2.作者提到的是more employees per patient，而不是单纯的more workers.这个里面是有很大的猫腻的，大家应该一眼就开出来
3.抱怨是面对的服务质量


There are several facets are questionable in this argument. At first, the stayed time is not a good indication about the quality of treatment. Secondly, the cure rate can not indicate about the quality about the hospital. Thirdly, more employees for per patient could not ensure a better treatment(这里应该还有一个总员工人数的问题) for the patient. Finally, few complaints were received about the service does not demonstrate all the other people are satisfied with the service. So, the assertion which the author concluded in the argument is unreliable.(属于直接列举型的开头，1，2两个点可以合并一下。毕竟你后文当中1，2其实也是合并写的)

To begin with, the author has tried to make us believe that the Saluda hospital (SH) could provide better quality treatment（漏了个and）（啊啊啊啊，我没看到，不，这不是理由，只能说我在语法方面还是很薄弱） because the average length of a patient's stay and the cure rate there is shorter than Megaville Hospital (MH).Lacking information about what kind(the extend.毕竟你下文说的仅仅是slight illness和serious disease) of illness the patient have got, the author can not confidently draw any conclusion about(of) the quality about the two hospitals. Maybe the patients who visited to SH have some slight sickness, and people may choose(这个属于合理的他因，说明所有重病患者都比较倾向于大医院) the big hospital like MH to cure some serious disease like cancer, or AIDS, and that kinds of sicknesses are not easy,even possible to heal.(这里少掉一个比较致命的东西，估计你后文也有这种情况：没有提到这种可能的他因对作者立场的关键性负面作用. 你的结论是the author can not confidently draw any conclusion，为什么can not?你提到了他因，但是为什么这种他因能够支持你的话，反对作者的？这个是需要说清楚的)想起前面的文，基本都有这种毛病，仅仅罗列了理由，至于为啥这些理由能够反驳作者的立场却没有很好的具体阐述，比如第2篇中提到P城市的小，反驳作者对于体育活动对小孩有害的立场有什么联系，看不出来。

Another question about the argument is that though there are more employees for per patient of SH than MH, the author can not make sure that every patient will be provided a better service. For the simple reason that we don't know the jobs of those employees, there may be some of them are bus drivers or cooks in cafeteria(这个是不合理的，大医院同样会有这些雇员，而且只多不少。这里的关键性入手点应该是per patient.实际上如果小医院本来就没什么生意，而大医院经常人满为患，自然小医院平均员工多一些). They can do nothing to help patient restore. Granted that all the jobs the employees worked are helpful to the patients. We don't know whether they are loyal to their occupation（这里同样有问题，loyality或者preoccupation,都不是所谓的“critical strike”，它们和你要提到的quality of service关系不大。关键的在这里：小医院可能没有大医院那么如此全面的医疗人员分布。比如麻醉师，比如操作X-Ray的。）. So the author generated the conclusion too hastily. (排开他因不合理以外，整段话的论述很不充分，除开TS句，就全部是他因了。然而我们的目的"并不是为了找他因，而是为了批作者的话"，所以自己的说理和逻辑分析，才是predominance)

Finally, the data about complaints about service of SH could not ensure us (that) SH provides better service. Because we don't know, how many patients have been the two hospitals respectively to cure some sicknesses, and what fraction of them has reported a complaint. May be the quantity of the complaints of SH is less than that of MH. But the fraction may be larger(这是啥意思...这里的关键点是可能很多病人不满但是没抱怨吧，直接讲出来就行，没必要去扯什么分数，老米这种逻辑思维单纯的肯定不会明白你在说什么). Granted that both the quantity and fraction of the complaints received by SH is less. The author can not convince us that all the other people are satisfied with the service.（最后一句，不知道是时间问题，还是你的思维问题，属于画蛇添足了，如果不能确定充分论述，那么就放掉这个点，拿出一个point但是不说清楚，就会成为败笔。花时间去找10个weak point把它们一一列举，不如花同样的时间把两个点彻底的讲清楚。）

In conclusion, this argument can not be taken seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide the detailed information about what kind of illness the patients have, what jobs do the employees worked for, and the exact proportion about the received complaints of all the patients.（结尾不改，个人习惯～）
看了666点评，不敢说懂了很多，突然觉得草木写作贴中关于论点的论证（第10讲），其文只提到了充分利用逻辑词，使论点得到充分的阐述，但在具体例子当中，更主要的是如何把一点辩驳说清楚说充分。果然还是要看别人写的文章和他人点评，总结经验。
个人觉得666有两点说的灰常对
1.然而我们的目的"并不是为了找他因，而是为了批作者的话"，所以自己的说理和逻辑分析，才是predominance)他因我想是题目中对此问题的产生有其他的可能性，但更主要的是关注题干所提出的观点的不合理性
1.花时间去找10个weak point把它们一一列举，不如花同样的时间把两个点彻底的讲清楚。）

中原527UID：2707367

5.模板化是不是太严重了？思路有没有问题？求猛拍！！！！！！！！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT159 - The nation of Claria covers a vast physical area. But despite wide geographic differences, many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity. A recent study of household electric costs in Claria found that families who cooled their houses with fans alone spent more on electricity than did families using air conditioners alone for cooling. However, those households that reported using both fans and air conditioners spent less on electricity than those households that used either fans or air conditioners alone. Thus, the citizens of Claria should follow the study's recommendation and use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity.
WORDS: 431
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-3-17 下午 08:10:53

In this argument, the author recommends both using air conditioners and fans as an effective way of saving money on electricity. In order to justify it, the author cites a survey that different families being diverse in the way of cooling the house spend different money on electricity. However, close scrutiny of the statistic and the line of reasoning reveal that it is not convincing.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. Lacking of assurance and information about the randomness and relative size of the survey' sample, the author cannot convince me the conclusion of the survey is reliable. As the author mentions, the nation of Claria covers a vast physical area, without enough large sample, so it is entirely possible that the survey is not representative of the real situation of Claria. Moreover different place will have different temperature and the price of electricity（这里应深入阐述一下举具体例子，比如有的地方不热就不用或少开空调与电扇自然电费就少；有的地方则反之。）, without comprehensive consideration these factors, I strongly doubt the reliability of the survey. The dubious survey undermines the follow conclusions which rely on it.

Secondly, the author asserts different way of cooling the house causes the decrease of electricity consuming just because they happen together. （巧合因素，感觉不够充分）Obviously, the evidence for the casual relationship is too vague to believe. Furthermore, to satisfy the same requirement, common sense informs us air condition costs more electricity than fans. （应该在题目角度上反驳而不是就着这类无意义的细节讨论）Thus, there must be other reasons causing the decrease of the electric consumption. The most reasonable one is that the expense for air condition is so money-consuming that the citizens would like to tolerate the hot weather rather than pay for it.（此论点想反驳什么？空调耗电费导致人们宁愿忍受炎热所引导出来的结论是什么？）

Even though the author can substantiate foregoing assumption and assertion, I still cannot accept his/her recommendation because the author overlooks other factors contributes to the amounts of electricity. As we know, for a family, facilities of cooling the house take little part of electricity. Computer, lights, television, fridge and so forth cost more electricity. Thus it is possible that even though the method of saving electricity recommended by the author works, it makes little contribution to the total electricity consuming so that we cannot see the change on spending money. Furthermore, if the electric consumptions of other factors increase, it will not save the money, strongly contradicting to the conclusion of the author.（此论点不错！可能采用作者所提供的空调与风扇结合会省电，但其他的家电耗电提高了，也达不到省钱的效果）

To sum up, the recommendation suffers from statistic and logic flaws causing that it is not warranted. In order to strengthen it, the author should provide the compelling evidence to prove the reliability of the survey and the casual relationship between the way of cooling their house and decrease of electric consumption. Additionally, the author should also provide appealing evidence to prove the total electric consumption will decrease.
看完666对第4篇的点评后，然后发现此文也是如此，列出了他因，但这他因如何能够反驳作者的立场，这么关键的地方却没写。
逻辑顺序应该好好安排下
第一点是讲幅员辽阔各个地区气候不一样，但仅仅也是讲到这里了，这种不一样说明了什么，如何反驳我找不到任何句子说明...
第二点说空调和电扇结合省钱可能是巧合现象，常识告诉我们空调更耗电，后面又突然出现一个理由是人们更愿意忍受酷热天气而不愿开空调....
第三点论据还不错是全文的唯一亮点了
感觉看下来论点很散没有主线

中原527UID：2707367

6.TOPIC: ARGUMENT163 - The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.

"In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. T\he new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham."
WORDS: 391
TIME: 00:25:46
DATE: 2009/3/12 10:40:26

Citing the comparison between the old hall and new hall, the author comes to the conclusion that on the purpose of saving money, Rockingham' century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building. However, this argument is based on a series of unproven assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

One such assumption is that the new hall will save energy. Even though the new one will be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot, the author ignores the fact the new hall is far larger than the old hall. In which case, the overall costs of the new hall would be no less, perhaps more than the energy costs of the old hall. Unless the author could provide exact data to demonstrate the new hall can really save energy, his assumption is dubious. (很好，提出合理的假设是新建筑会省能源，但面积大，总的来说却不如老建筑)

The author's claim that building the new hall will save a considerable amount of money is open to doubt. On the one hand, tearing down the old hall and building the new hall is considerably money-consuming. The author does not inform the exact amount of money needed; maybe it might lead the town council to budget strain.（财政紧缩） On the other hand, the author mentions some of the space could be rented out to generate income. However, people might not be willing to rent the hall, in which case, the town would not get any revenue. In short, without providing solid evidences that building new hall would save money, the author's proposal is unpersuasive.

Finally, as the current hall is century-old, it might have historic values. For example, the old hall might be a famous tourist site of town, which attracts thousands of tourists every year. Or perhaps, the old hall might have certain special meaning in the local residents' minds. They might regard the hall as the symbol of the town. If either of the cases is true, the old hall's merits far outweigh the new one's advantages.

All in all, this argument relies on certain unwarranted assumptions and therefore specious at best. To convince readers to accept his/her conclusion that replacing the old hall with new one, the author should provide information on whether the new hall will save energy and save a considerable amount of money, and last but not least, the old hall' historic values.
逻辑推理如下
1 节能问题
2 支出和创收问题：拆老建新耗财，租房不一定有人租
3 老建筑本身的价值
我相信这篇文章做到了条条深入辩驳的要求，个人拙见也提不出什么更好的要求了…..

中原527UID：2707367

7   TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.

"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
WORDS: 416          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009/3/9 16:28:42

In this augument, the author drew the conclution about the increase of recreational use of the Mason River, after his/her seemingly convincing procedure of reasoning, and suggested the City council to increase the budget for the improvement of lands along Mason River. As far as I see it, this argument omits some sunbstential information, and therefor suffers some logical fallacies.

To begin with, the author falsely established a causal relationship between the complaint about the quality of the water and the seldom using of the nearby River for recreational activity. Although the two things happened simultaneously, but there are pobably many other reasons for seldom using of the water, too. For example, in the city there is a swimming pool, which supplies a good service and has new infrastructure. So the residents prefer going there to siwmming in the river.（prefer to swim in the river 就可以了吧） Like swimming pool, other places, such as park and artifical lack, will attract people as well. Without providing us the information about other places in the city, the author's assumption is invalid.（他因）

In addition, can the annoucement about cleaning up Mason River by the agency make the use of river increased? Even assuming that the residents seldom use the River, because they worried the quality of the water, （这句基本是重复题目的问题，应适当缩写）a promise about cleaning up cannot make the river really clean at a short time. The environmental restore will take a relative long time, as we know. Moreover, the author did not tell us the detail of the cleaning plan. When does begin it, and how does the agency put it into practice? （这句啥意思？）So the author's conclution about a increase of use of the water lacks credibility.

Last but not least, the author's suggestion is also doubtful. Even if the river can be cleaned up, it is not clear that why the council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the Mason River? Can this plan represent the residents' real will? It is entirely possible that a majority of residents want to keep these lands wild as before, so that they can get a real relax in the nature. The author did not show the oppinion of the residents, therefore the final suggestion may be not proper.

To sum up, in this argument, the evidence is not enough to support waht the author maintained. To strenghten, more information, such as a introduce of the city, a detailed plan about cleaning up the river and a poll about the improvement of lands, are necessary.
作者逻辑推理如下
1.        提出水质与河的利用没什么关系（质疑），提出可能人们有其他的选择。这里举出游泳的例子，个人觉得这例子单薄了点，而且语言有点啰嗦。估计是作者为了凑字数。
2.        突然冒出了个河水治理需要时间，而且也没充分说明这论点是如何反驳作者观点。
3.        最后一点仅仅停留在质疑的层面上，蜻蜓点水漂过
总之，感觉这篇文章相当薄弱没有分量感，而且很多单词错误估计是不熟悉电脑的缘故，语法上也有些问题。

中原527UID：2707367

咦？
我刚发的几句话又不见了？
再试试..........

中原527UID：2707367

试一下还能不能留言...

中原527UID：2707367

7   TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.

"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
WORDS: 416          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009/3/9 16:28:42

In this augument, the author drew the conclution about the increase of recreational use of the Mason River, after his/her seemingly convincing procedure of reasoning, and suggested the City council to increase the budget for the improvement of lands along Mason River. As far as I see it, this argument omits some sunbstential information, and therefor suffers some logical fallacies.

To begin with, the author falsely established a causal relationship between the complaint about the quality of the water and the seldom using of the nearby River for recreational activity. Although the two things happened simultaneously, but there are pobably many other reasons for seldom using of the water, too. For example, in the city there is a swimming pool, which supplies a good service and has new infrastructure. So the residents prefer going there to siwmming in the river.（prefer to swim in the river 就可以了吧） Like swimming pool, other places, such as park and artifical lack, will attract people as well. Without providing us the information about other places in the city, the author's assumption is invalid.（他因）

In addition, can the annoucement about cleaning up Mason River by the agency make the use of river increased? Even assuming that the residents seldom use the River, because they worried the quality of the water, （这句基本是重复题目的问题，应适当缩写）a promise about cleaning up cannot make the river really clean at a short time. The environmental restore will take a relative long time, as we know. Moreover, the author did not tell us the detail of the cleaning plan. When does begin it, and how does the agency put it into practice? （这句啥意思？）So the author's conclution about a increase of use of the water lacks credibility.

Last but not least, the author's suggestion is also doubtful. Even if the river can be cleaned up, it is not clear that why the council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the Mason River? Can this plan represent the residents' real will? It is entirely possible that a majority of residents want to keep these lands wild as before, so that they can get a real relax in the nature. The author did not show the oppinion of the residents, therefore the final suggestion may be not proper.

To sum up, in this argument, the evidence is not enough to support waht the author maintained. To strenghten, more information, such as a introduce of the city, a detailed plan about cleaning up the river and a poll about the improvement of lands, are necessary.
作者逻辑推理如下
1.        提出水质与河的利用没什么关系（质疑），提出可能人们有其他的选择。这里举出游泳的例子，个人觉得这例子单薄了点，而且语言有点啰嗦。估计是作者为了凑字数。
2.        突然冒出了个河水治理需要时间，而且也没充分说明这论点是如何反驳作者观点。
3.        最后一点仅仅停留在质疑的层面上，蜻蜓点水漂过
总之，感觉这篇文章相当薄弱没有分量感，而且很多单词错误估计是不熟悉电脑的缘故，语法上也有些问题。

中原527UID：2707367

如果我再发不出去...
就只好含泪另开贴了...

中原527UID：2707367

8.这篇又是化工,一边写一边骂,真恶心的题材... 觉得自己的2,3段就是在讲一件事:这个技术could not be broadly actualized,是不是重复了... 算了,吃完饭来改. TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - Copper occurs in nature mixed with other minerals and valuable metals in ore, and the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Until fairly recently, the only way to extract pure copper from ore was by using a process that requires large amounts of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. New copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Therefore, we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly. WORDS: 475          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009/3/6 17:32:50 Comparing the new technologies with the traditional ones, and then based upon the superiority in electricity reducing of the former, the author thus predicted an optimistic perspective of the new copper-extracting skills. However, to prove those hypothesize requires more work of reasoning and more relative background evidences.(用词很精彩，浓缩了题目的论点。) To begin with, the author might intensively conceal the purity of copper proceeded and the expenditure of replacing new equipment. Primarily, the quality of the products should not be overlooked. Admittedly, for its important influence in earning profits, cost should be considered as an important factor in comprehensive judgment of new industrial skills, whereas the quality and quantity of the products are even more decisive in determining practical value of certain new technology. As is self-evident, one industrial innovation could be broadly accepted only when its manufactures satisfied customers. If, for example, the new process of copper-extracting technologies failed to extract more pure copper, factories would never be willing to accept new technologies although the traditional one expends more electricity. In addition, the technical costs are undeserved slipped. When the CEO of one copper-extracting corporation endeavor to decrease their daily cost of energy, the primary consideration of him/her would be how much should he/she pay for the new equipment? If the costs of exchanging equipment, for instance, are much higher than the spending of extra electricity, one would require great act of will to eliminate old equipment. Since the expectation of the author established mainly in wide spread and broad using of the new industrial skills, he/she should not neglect the possibilities mentioned above. 新技术能否提炼高纯度的铜；更新新技术的投入可能要大于获利 What is more, the effects of the new technologies to environment as well face the similar challenge. Are those new industrial skills detrimental to ecosphere? There might be opportunity that the equipment utilizing those technologies would release great amount of detrimental gases or polluted water to our living circumstance. Actually, if certain new technology will be harmful to our generations, it would never be actualized. Since the author rashly skip this possibility while focus merely on the power saving, the optimistic perspective he/she expecting might never emerge. True, new revolutionary industrial technology rarely failed to influence our daily lives, nonetheless, before verifying its practical influences, the positive anticipation is somewhat too hastily. 合理的他因：对环境的影响 Last but not least, the author failed to take into account that there might be other alternative possibilities to reach out to the purpose of energy saving. Do there exist any chemical compounds that could accelerate the copper-extracting action? As is known to all, appropriate catalyst could lower the temperature required in chemical interactions and therefore reduce the cost of electricity. 额额额额，这个纯熟专业领域里面了，幸好ETS不要求考生对这方面需要很精通的知识… In sum, were there detailed background information demonstrating quality of the products and cost of the machine, particular description convincing the essential impact to circumstance, comprehensive deduction excluding other possible approaches, the expectation of the author would be more rational. 逻辑分析比较深刻，和前面几篇文章质量明显又是另外一个档次。 但第2段两个推理是可以分开说，两者之间并没有什么很密切的联系。新技术能否提高铜冶炼的纯度以及新技术的投入与获利。堆在一段里显得臃肿。 然后作者又提出合理的他因，即新技术对环境的影响 第三点，估计这位是研究化学的…但在AWINRO中ETS很明确表示了它不需要考生在专业领域里面的知识。

中原527UID：2707367

9    159.The nation of Claria covers a vast physical area. But despite wide geographic differences, many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity. A recent study of household electric costs in Claria found that families who cooled their houses with fans alone spent more on electricity than did families using air conditioners alone for cooling. However, those households that reported using both fans and air conditioners spent less on electricity than those households that used either fans or air conditioners alone. Thus, the citizens of Claria should follow the study's recommendation and use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity.
时间 30:00

----------------正文------------------------
In this argument, the arguer points out that the citizens of Claria should follow the study's recommendation and use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity. To support his recommendation, the arguer claims that it is based on a recent study. However, at the first glance, the arguer seems to be plausible, but after a close scrutiny, it lies in several fallacies and logical flaws discussed below.

To begin with, the arguer neglects an important factor which the nation of Claria covers a vast physical area. This phenomenon leads to the different temperature in different region. Therefore, in common sense, with different temperature it is absolutely different costs on electricity. For example, A is natural cooler than B, so A must pay less electric money on fans or air conditioners because the residents in A have already felt cooler than B. Consequently, without consider this factor, the arguer's claim is open to doubt.
具体情况具体分析，C国幅员辽阔，气候不同
Secondly, the arguer fails to prove that it is the fact that all the electric costs which they have seen is the fans' or air conditioners' using cost. In other word, the arguer commits a false equal relationship between the overall electric cost and the fans' and air conditioners’ cost. It is entirely possible that when the residents are using fans or air conditioners, they also use other electric facilities, such as computers, televisions and so forth. Thus, without ruling out other possibilities about the electric cost, the arguer's claim can not convince us thoroughly.
电费因素，不仅是空调风扇，还有其他电器
Even if I was to concede that it is the fact that this overall electric cost is equal to the cooling equipments' cost, the arguer's point is also suspect. It is likely that the longer we use the electric facilities, the more opportunity (probability) they will be wrong (they happen to malfunction). It is absolutely possible that the saving money is so little that we can neglect it while the electric equipment is mighty expensive. Therefore, it may not save money if these facilities have something wrong as the result of long time usage.
不同制冷机耗电量
To sum up, this argument lacks credible because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To better bolster and strengthen it, the arguer needs to provide specific information about the electric cost and offer us more data of local temperature in different regions.
红色为自己后来先修正的
总的来看论点基本都击中点子了，而且正如666经常提出的，都比较充分地展开论述。