- 最后登录
- 2023-2-4
- 在线时间
- 5701 小时
- 寄托币
- 29807
- 声望
- 4149
- 注册时间
- 2008-11-24
- 阅读权限
- 100
- 帖子
- 1431
- 精华
- 20
- 积分
- 9285
- UID
- 2575525
- 声望
- 4149
- 寄托币
- 29807
- 注册时间
- 2008-11-24
- 精华
- 20
- 帖子
- 1431
|
本帖最后由 irvine666 于 2009-6-28 14:05 编辑
TOPIC: ARGUMENT82 - The following appeared in a letter to an editor.
"In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment."
In this argument, based on the facts that smoke produced by wood causes respiratory and eye problems, while charcoal produces less smoke than wood does, and that charcoal which is slightly higher-priced, produces more heat than wood at the same amount, the author concluded that wood as primary heating fuel should be switched to charcoal(这篇文章的conclusion不是这个,是后面的thereby). However, the writer neglected some alternatives which may undermine the reasoning of the argument.
First, it is entirely possible that, in the process of transfiguring(这个词用的完全不对意思) wood into charcoal, considerable amount of smoke would be produced. The author stated that charcoal is a fuel which creates less smoke than wood does, but there is no information about the wood-to-charcoal process.(仍然重复过多,应该彻底改写。此外NO INFORMATION ABOUT这种论证句子我个人建议最好少用,因为无论多么严谨的论述,总会有NO INFORMATION ABOUT的地方的,这样论述会显得你这句话很无赖。我给你写个例子,以后可以考虑这么写:Althought it might be true that charcoal produces less smoke in burning than wood does, the author's conclusion might be somewhat too hasty for he/she failed to take the smoke produced in the wood-to-charcoal process into consideration. 这样就都是你自己的话了,完全没有抄任何题目的意思) If in this process, large amount of smoke is produced, the "charcoal creates less smoke" statement would mean nothing(逻辑推论错误。题目中你提到的那句话的意思是作为fuel,产生的烟雾少,并没有考虑到制造这个fuel的过程。所以你要反驳,也不能从charcoal creates less smoke入手,因为这句话确实是正确的。而只能从preserve the environment入手。事实上,你后文的论述实际上也是从preserve入手的。). The only difference is (that) the smoke produced by wood (is) separated into two parts(一般我不改语法,不过这句实在是错的有点严重), the first part is the smoke created when wood burnt into charcoal in factories, and the other part when charcoal is used for heating. (smoke分成两部分,然后呢?没了?那怎么和你的TS扯得上关系?你至少漏掉了类似这样的话吧:So, to judge whether the fuel is less harmful to both people and the environment could not merely depend on its pollution in burning. )If that is the case(一段话里面不要出现太多if,尤其是在你已经开始做结论的时候,if that is the case这种话其实只能暴露你心虚。), both wood and charcoal are harmful to people’s health, as well as environment, because the quantity of smoke produced in each heating system are almost equal.
Even if the charcoal do produce less smoke than wood does, it's not safe to say that the smoke charcoal creates is no more harmful than that of wood. In common sense, more heating provided in smaller amount means high density.(这个是什么common sense...我就可以反驳你核聚变里面的氢元素就不是这样的,还有酒精燃料也不是。) People would have confidence in thinking that smoke produced by charcoal, which is expected to be less, is denser(我认为这是个及其牵强的他因。或者可以说你这段都是很牵强的,请读题,题目里面有charcoal是partially burning wood做出来的,因此在这里讨论烟雾的有害物含量浓度并不适当。) than is that by wood.(这个句子属于尝试性写作,用的不对还请66详细讲解一下~)(句式没问题,逻辑很勉强而已) Perhaps, the denser the smoke is, the heavier the problems it causes in people’s health and deforestation(smoke怎么又跟deforestation扯上关系的...逻辑又开始跳跃了,同时那个 the heavier the problems是啥米玩意...). Thus, in this case, less smoke created by charcoal is not safer than more but lighter smoke produced by wood.(这个句子乱死了...改一下。顺便,你这段论述里面,整个就是在说smoke可能浓度更高,但是论述并没有和人有直接的联系,这里突然跑出来一个safer又属于逻辑跳跃。) It’s likely that people would stop at this consideration before adopting charcoal as their primary fuel.
Another factor involved is that the author stated that charcoal costs more than wood does, but apparently he or she concluded superficially.(切记这种类型的句子,就是提出一大堆资料,让读者自己跑去猜你到底要论述的是哪一点,而且非常容易造成误解,以后绝对要彻底抛弃掉。A当中的句子一定要精确!精确到读者看了就知道你的原本意思。PS:而且综合了你下文的论述,我更糊涂了,你这个TS是想说明个啥米?) Along with the change of primary fuel, it is possible that some new devices should be planted in order to use charcoal. Maybe a stove in each house is necessary before burning charcoal as fuel. Maybe a steam dome, demanding considerable cost, needs to be built, of which the expense absorbed by all the users. Considering these fees, the cost of charcoal as primary fuel may significantly exceed that of wood, and thereby the author is losing his economical ground as well.(这些论述怎么能写到经济背景去的?这个话题偏的一塌糊涂...题目提到charcoal的价格的目的是啥?是people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship,switch to charcoal。他所关注的对象,换言之就是:"用户"。 跟你的经济形势,跟你的蒸气设备,跟你的new devices那是一毛钱的关系都没有...而且从常识来看,燃烧木炭需要new devices么?不要关注过于小概率的可能性,这只能降低你的说服力,合理的他因才是最重要的。总的来讲,这段真的是彻底的悲剧了)
Besides, although charcoal is more productive in heating than wood, as a fuel it may causes other problems which prevent people from widely adopting it as primary fuel. For example, it's easy to understand that wood is better for house cleaning. In other words, the black charcoal may destroy the neatness and double the cleaning work. It's understandable for people not to use the charcoal as primary fuel, though possibly economical, because they do not want to clean their houses, or at least storehouses, more frequently than necessary. Changing the heating system, in this case switching primary fuel, is a large project deserves a poll to take into account the citizens’ opinions before merely take it into action.
这段话我实在不明白你的论述突破口在什么地方。causes other problems仅仅只能说明可能推广上会遇到一些问题,但是,和题目所关注的preserve the environment和people's health有啥关系么?我只能把它看作是延伸性的话题了。
作为ISSUE,我是不反对,甚至比较推荐用一些延伸性的评论来完善你的话题和思维的,但是对A,延伸性的评论是绝对不应该出现的,因为A是驳论文,作者话里面明明就没有出现过的东西,你为什么能拿出来说明作者是错的?
请记住,A是考逻辑,特别是严格的逻辑关系,而不是I那样只要自圆其说的话,相对可以发散的逻辑关系。A里面所有的批驳点,必须一一跟原文对应才行。
To conclude, the author considered some alternatives successfully but neglected deeper reasons why charcoal is not adopted by most people, such as heavier smoke, cleaning burden. Therefore he failed to provide a well-reasoned argument.(结尾不改,个人习惯) |
|