1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by kulewy531（为了未来，为了永恒）

kulewy531UID：2603031

以上是整理过的前四次作业！

kulewy531UID：2603031

第八次作业
GRE阅读：（理解大意，少数地方没看懂）：短文错一个，第三题我选了C；长文错两个，第四题选了C，第七题选了A（看错了题目，不应该啊！）
LAST阅读：只对了两个（第4，6题），感觉读懂了，就是做不对题，郁闷
CET4；全对
CET6：错了一个（最后一个为什么选C啊，完全看不出来）

kulewy531UID：2603031

限时argument206，考前求拍

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.（这句话逻辑有点突兀，应该加一句话将different interests和different possibility of injury联系起来） Second, the author fails to provide the number of children who is under nine and suffered injuries throughout the country last year. （不理解，题目中不是说了over 80000吗，我觉得应该强调的是这80000占占全部人数的百分比）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. All these scenarios, if true, will undermine the author's conclusion. In addition, the author unjustifiably claims（作者并没有明确Claim） 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. Even assuming that it is a big city, the author still cannot apply the study to Parkville. There are maybe （直接用might be 就好了）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（口语用法，不合适）, 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.（这一段过于简单，这是原文的一个大错误） 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.连词的使用过于简单，有模板化倾向 2.可以多考虑“think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims”和"ask yourself what changes in the argument would nake the reasoning more sound"

kulewy531UID：2603031

TOPIC: ARGUMENT203 - The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."
WORDS: 431
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-4-7 9:59:42

提纲：
1，在医院时间长短不能说明治疗质量
2，治愈比率同样不能说明治疗质量
3，医院有更多工作人员不一定能提供更好服务
4，投诉少不能说明服务好


There are several facets are questionable in this argument. At first, the stayed time（应该是staying） is not a good indication about the quality of treatment. Secondly, the cure rate can not indicate about（不用加about） the quality about the hospital. Thirdly, more employees for per patient could not ensure a better treatment 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.

To begin with, the author has tried to make us believe（convince就好了） that the Saluda hospital (SH) could provide better quality treatment 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 of illness the patient have got, the author can not confidently draw any conclusion about the quality about the two hospitals. Maybe the patients who visited to SH have some slight sickness, and people may choose 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.（结论是economical和better quality两方面，本段只说了一方面）

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. 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. So the author generated the conclusion too hastily. （还有一方面是职工多就不是economical了）

Finally, the data about complaints about service of SH could not ensure us （ensure that）SH provides better service. Because we don't know, how many patients have been（gone to） 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. 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.

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.

kulewy531UID：2603031

限时argument131，过两天就考了，请求指点

今天限时写的，过几天就考试了，不知道写成这样能有多少分，大家给点建议吧，先谢谢了！ 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. Firstly, there are many other nature factors which would influence the fish population, such as water temperature, spaning（应该是spawning吧） season, extreme weather phenomenon and so forth. Secondly, the author fails to prove that the banned actions have not happened.（似乎有点突兀可以说得更完满一点） If the water is polluted, the fish population will probably decrease. Besides, the oil may also float from other place. All these sceranios, 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, 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 （might 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.

优点：逻辑分析到位
缺点：批驳不到位，过于简单
         语言有单一些

kulewy531UID：2603031

Argument 35 首次限时，欢迎猛拍

时间果然不够用啊…… 用时：35m； 字数：449 ------------------ 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." ------------------ 我的理解 1.salicylates是治疗头痛的药物（无可争议） 2.被调查对象的头痛人数减少，原因是salicylates被当作preservatives加入食物中（1.是否具有因果关系 2.salicylates被当作添加剂防腐剂是否还具有作用） 3.salicylates被进一步当作flavor additives有助于减少头痛人数（1.样本人数是否具有代表性 2.是否用量越大越好） 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. 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. There is a high（ tremendous ） 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, 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.（这一段主要批驳样本的代表性，可以多举几个反例） 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.（这一点我没想到，其实可以说得更概括一点，就是单凭现在的一种趋势就作出预测是不可信的） 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.

kulewy531UID：2603031

就快考了，Argument第一次限时，求拍

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（开始） 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, 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. 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. 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.（一二段可以并作一段，且显然这一段内容更重要，可以提前） 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. （批驳不够充分，cooling用电的减少有可能增加其他的用电，还有购置空调的成本问题） 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

kulewy531UID：2603031

16号考试,刚限时模考一片argument163 希望大家帮帮忙，提点意见，感激涕零

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. The 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. （此段落脚点不好，文章的结论是省钱而不是省电） 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. On the other hand（好像用的不对）, 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.（还可以提一下旅游收入） 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.

本文的组织逻辑不太好
文章的结论是省钱，理由是1.旧房子住着不舒服 2.新房子能源效率高 3.可以出租赚钱
第一点显然和省钱无关
第二点能源效率高不一定省钱
第三点不一定会出租
但是，最大的问题是，文章的理由不足，例如建新房要花钱等
还有一点可以提，不一定非要拆了老房子，可以改造嘛

kulewy531UID：2603031

第一篇限时，argument137【4月同心砥砺组】第4周 第1次

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（substential） 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. 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. 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, 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? 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.

优点：逻辑严密
缺点：模板话

kulewy531UID：2603031

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 hypothesise requires more work of reasoning and more relative background evidences.

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.(可以分做两段写)

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.

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. （这一段是不是有点跑题？）

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.

kulewy531UID：2603031

argument159 限时第二篇 （done by 草木也知愁）

本帖最后由 草木也知愁 于 2009-3-6 18:13 编辑 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. 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. 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（似乎不对吧） 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. 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

过于模板化
分析只是点到为止没有展开

kulewy531UID：2603031

argument180 限时成功 求拍

"Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One graduate of the course was able to read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours; another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year. Obviously, the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. Moreover, Easy Read costs only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits to Acme. Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read At first glance, it would seem, according to the logic of the argument, that Acme Publishing Company (AC) will benefit greatly by requiring all of the employers to take the Easy Read, would be a foregone（似乎不对） conclusion. However, the reasoning behind the argument is flawed for several reasons: the author's assumption that the employees taking the Easy Read has greatly improved productivity is open to doubt; the author omits the possibility the training may be useless to Acme; and the author fail to provide information to support that all employees of Acme need to take the training. The author's assumption that the employees taking the training have improved productivity is specious. The author only takes two employees, the number of whom is too small to represent the overall employees taking the training, to support him. Perhaps other employees' productivity has not improved; even worse, taking the three-week seminar will require the employees to take a three- weeks excuse, which will serious affect the normal jobs of the employees. Besides, there may be other factors that explain the achievements of two employees. Perhaps, their abilities have already been very outstanding. Without the training one of them still can read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours; while the other still can rise to vice president. In sum, the author should provide more details of the other employees taking the training The author fail to guarantee other companies' success will apply to Acme. After all they are different companies and belong to different fields. Perhaps the training will not succeed in Acme for its disparities from other companies, such as the company size, the employees' jobs and the education background of employees. For example, maybe the employees of Acme are graduating from those famous universities, and they already have outstanding reading speeds, which do not have to be improved any more. Without considering the dissimilarities between these companies, the author can not assert Acme’s employees need the training. Even assuming the employees of Acme have the need to improve their reading speed, the author's proposal that all employees take the training does not make sense. Common sense tells us that a company's employees have various jobs, many of which do not need the employees to read. For example, the company may have cleaners, whose jobs are just to do the cleaning. If require these cleaners to take the training, at the expense of $500 per person, would it not a waste of money? Improving the productivity is of great importance to the company; however, the personnel director of Acme should not be hasty to give his proposal. To convince the readers to accept his conclusion, the author has much work to do: he should find if the training really can improve productivity; he should provide data to show whether Acme's employees need to take it and which employees need and which need not the training

个人认为这篇文章逻辑不错，其他方面也还行，是篇好文章

kulewy531UID：2603031

argument65 限时第一篇，真诚求拍

"For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, the five best-selling cheeses at our newest store were all domestic cheddar（切达干酪） cheeses from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a recent survey by Cheeses of the World magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its subscribers. Since our company can reduce expenses by limiting inventory, the best way to improve profits in all of our stores is to discontinue stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses." According to the sales of their newest store and the results of a survey by Cheeses of the World, the president of a chain of cheese stores comes to the conclusion that the west（best） way to improve profits in all of their stores is to discontinue stocking many of their varieties of imported cheeses and concentrate primarily on domestic  cheeses. Though sound as it seems, the reasoning is flawed in several aspects. To begin with, in the newest store the domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconisin are the best selling cheeses does not mean that all the domestic cheeses sell well. It is entirely possible that all the other domestic cheeses nevertheless sell badly. Perhaps, in the newest store, the domestic cheeses except for those from Wisconisin sell not as well as the imported cheeses and the overall sales of imported cheeses are far more than that of domestic cheeses. If this is the case, discontinuing stocking the imported cheeses, the stores, whose overall sales will drop sharply, will definitely lose huge profits. Unless the president finds out the other cheeses' sales, his proposal will not be convincing. Besides, even assuming that in the newest store, the sales of domestic are better than those of imported cheeses, the president's advice still be too hasty. The president has not provided any evidence that the newest can typify all of their stores. There are many disparities among all the stores, such as the geography positions, the economical conditions of the cities where the stores are located, the tastes of the stores' customers, which will lead to different  results of the president' proposal in variable stores. To guarantee this proposal can improve profits, the presidents must make an investigation to learn what the sales in other stores and whether the sales of the newest store can represent all the stores' sales. In addition, the result of the survey by the magazine can lends little support to the president's proposal. The majority of the survey's respondents are the subscribers of the magazine and not representatives of the overall customers of this chain of cheese stores. Perhaps the respondents' tastes differ greatly from the tastes of this chain of stores' customers, who more prefer imported cheeses. If the president wants to know what the tastes of his stores' customers, he should do a survey among the customers of their chain of stores, rather than blindly believing one magazine’s survey. In sum, there are still many jobs demanding the presidents to do before his proposal's carried out. Such as, making an investigation to learn what the sales of the other cheeses and what the tastes of customers in all the stores of the chains are. 文法较好 逻辑上还有一点要说，减少商品种类可能影响总销量。这是一个重要的问题！

kulewy531UID：2603031

Argument6 新手限时第二篇 求拍

TOPIC: ARGUMENT6 - The following was written as a part of an application for a small business loan by a group of developers in the city of Monroe. "A jazz music club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. Currently, the nearest jazz club is 65 miles away; thus, our proposed club, the C Note, would have the local market all to itself. Plus, jazz is extremely popular in Monroe: over 100,000 people attended Monroe's jazz festival last summer, several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe, and the highest-rated radio program in Monroe is 'Jazz Nightly,' which airs every weeknight. Finally, a nationwide study indicates that the typical jazz fan spends close to $1,000 per year on jazz entertainment. It is clear that the C Note cannot help but make money." WORDS: 429 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-2-19 15:55:39     In this argument, the author brought out several facts to support his loan plan. First, currently there is no jazz club nearby Monroe (M). Second, jazz is of great popularity in M. Third, nearly $1000 was spent per year in jazz nationwide. A careful inspection will reveal that these facts are not sufficient to guarantee a profitable result of C note.     To begin with, the favor of 'Jazz Nightly' doesn't necessarily indicate that M's resident will also be interested to take part in a jazz club. On the contrary, the highest-rated radio program which airs every weeknight may attract those people, and provide them with a reason not to attend a jazz club. After all, turning on the radio is much more convenient than driving to a club. Neither can the residence of several well-know jazz musicians infer that a jazz club located in M will be warmly welcomed. It is quite possible that those musicians are acting in the nearest jazz club, or on frequent nationwide show. Without evidence that the people in M will be eager to attend a jazz club, I can not accept that C will be so welcomed.     Another critical fallacy the argument suffer（suffers） is, the nationwide study that typical jazz fan spends nearly $1000 per year on jazz doesn't necessarily apply to M. It is quite possible that the fans in M do not follow these general trends. Besides, the money spend on jazz club may only contribute a little part to the whole budget. Thus, lacking evidence that M's residents will behave similarly as the typical jazz fans do, and they will indeed spend large amount of money on jazz club, the author's conclusion that C Note will make money is unconvincing.     Finally, even assuming the people in M will be crazy about jazz club and they prone to spend a lot of money attending a jazz night, it doesn't means that C Note will definitely be profitable. As we all know, both revenue and cost contribute to the profit. Probably the rent in M is quite expensive, or the salary level in M is relatively high, which will inevitably increase the cost. Unless the author provides more information about supply, demand, and relative costs, it is almost impossible to make sure whether C Note will make money.     In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen it the author should provide clearer evidence that M's residents will go in for C Note. The author should also clearly analyze the relative costs against its incomings, and make this application more persuasive. 关于“Currently, the nearest jazz club is 65 miles away; thus, our proposed club, the C Note, would have the local market all to itself”这句话的批驳也应该包含文中 总体来说，文章的文法不错

kulewy531UID：2603031

argument51 限时第一篇，还有10天考试了，恳请大家指点，帮帮兄弟

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment." WORDS: 458 TIME: 00:29:57 DATE: 2009-2-17 PM 12:40:35 According to the preliminary result of a study of two groups of patients, the author comes to the conclusion that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. Although sound it seems, the argument is flawed in several aspects. Primarily, maybe other factors other than the taking the antibiotics contributed the different effects of the two treatments in the study. The two groups of patients were treated by different doctors. Except for the antibiotics, there are many differences between the treatments - the doctors' skills, the treatment measures and the equipments the doctor used. Maybe, Dr. Newland has better skills, and the measures and equipments he used were more advanced. All of these advantages can explain why the recuperation time of Dr. Newland's patients was greatly reduced. In addition, the conditions of the patients in the two groups maybe different. Perhaps, the patients of the first group have less serious injuries than those of the latter group, leading the first group easily to recover. Besides, the author ignores the negative effects of the antibiotics. Nearly all the medicines have more or less side effects. The author provides no evidence to prove the antibiotics is an exception. The author only mentions the patients' recuperation time, no informing us whether the patients in the first group had some new symptoms, such as headache, nausea, powerless and sleepy. Even if the patients did not have any new symptom, there is no guarantee that in the future they will not have any symptoms caused by the antibiotics. Perhaps, many patients have serious headache three months later. Lacking clinical experiment, the author can not assert that the antibiotics do not have negative effects, considering the safety of the patients. Additionally, given that the antibiotics do not have any side effects and help patients with severe muscle strain recover, the author's proposal that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics is unacceptable. The treatments of the patients with light muscle strain are not the same with those of the patients with severe muscle strain. Perhaps, without taking antibiotics, the patients with light muscle strain will still recover quickly and will not have the danger to get second diagnosed. If this is the case, it is not reasonable to advise those patients to take antibiotics, letting alone the high price of antibiotics. In sum, the argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen it, the author must prove us that it is the antibiotics rather than other factors explain the difference between the recoveries of the two groups of patients. What is more, the author should prove the antibiotics have no side effects and all the patients with muscle strain need to take them. 文章的逻辑分析不错，不过有点模板化