[经验思考] 【argu写作指导】evidence类 [复制链接]

Dr_JohnDoe
UID: 3370598

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 263
寄托币: 1097
注册时间: 2012-9-5
精华: 0
帖子: 133

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-11-26 21:11:06 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 Dr_JohnDoe 于 2012-11-26 21:30 编辑

之前在别人的帖子里发表过一些对新G写作指导的个人看法，但很多人还是没有意识到这个问题。所以我打算以此贴强调，就以evidence为例。

不说别的，先上范文：

It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article
that children in Tertia actually are raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even,
by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is
not as valid as an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this
argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. The argument
could end up being much weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid. In
order to make that determination, we need to know more then analyze what we learn.

The first piece of evidence that we would need in order to evaluate Dr. Karp’s claims
is information about whether or not Tertia and the surrounding island group have
changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study
20 years ago, and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For
example, if we had evidence that in teh intervening years Westerners had settled on
the island and they introduced a more typical Western-style family structure, it would
certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been
accurate, and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct, as well, though his conclusion that Dr.
Field’s method is ineffective would be seriously weakened.

Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves the exact
locations where Dr. Karp’s interviews took place. According to this article, Dr. Karp and
his graduate students conducted interviews of “children living in the group of islands
that includes Tertia.” If we were to learn that they never interviewed a single Tertian
child, it would significantly weaken the conclusion. It could turn out to be the case, for
example, that children on Tertia are raised communally, whereas children on other
islands nearby are raised by their biological parents.

In order to fully evaluate this article, we would also need to learn more about the
interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used. What exactly did they ask? We don’t
know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say
about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about
their biological parents than they do about other adults does not meant hat they are
raised by their biological parents. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument
if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or
how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing WHAT
the children said, it is hard to accept Dr. Karp’s conclusion.

It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to
evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the
results of his study to a conclusion that interview-centered methods are inherently
more valid than observational-centered approaches. In order to fully evaluate this
claim, in fact, we would need to look at many more examples of interview-based and
observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into
different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational
study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such
grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs a lot of additional evidence (ideally a meta -
analysis of hundreds of anthropological studies).

Clearly, then, we need to have additional evidence in order to get a more complete
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Karp’s article. We need to know
about Tertia and the surrounding islands, whether or not they have changed over the
past 20 years. We also need to know about study design (Dr. Karp’s and Dr. Field’s).
And we really need a lot more information if we want to extend the results of a study
about one island culture to all anthropological fieldwork.

相信看过OG的人，应该都知道这篇Dr. Karp的6分范文。也许你没时间看了，那么至少，请你看一下我用红色字体标出的部分，体会一下，什么叫evidence统领全文。

同志们！该从老G北美范文的梦里醒过来了！这玩意儿根本不是一回事啊！

evidence的写作指导赫然写着：

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

首先，要说明需要哪些具体的证据。所谓具体，可以说是越具体越好。比如你可以说：
（1）我需要一份对居民的调查
（2）我需要知道交通事故的地点，起因
（3）作者应该告诉我们，前5年的销售额如何
有时候，举evidence是需要创造力的，不是随便挑一挑逻辑错误就可以。

其次，最重要的部分，是说明这些证据会如何加强或削弱原论断，比如：

假如前5年的销售额都比现在高，那么论者的假设恐怕是站不住脚的。相反，如果不是这样，那么论者的说法就被有效支持了。

注意，所谓加强和削弱，不是简单地说if XXX, then weaken; otherwise, strengthen，而是非常具体地把其中的逻辑关系说出来，到底怎么加强和削弱了。

P.S. 说真的，我不知道为什么那么多培训机构都对写作指导持有那么轻蔑的态度。ETS恶心人的能力从来是只增不减的，那么多道重复的题目，你以为是ETS吃干饭了吗？迄今为止，都没有一本参考书对argu的四种写作指导好好研究过。我希望这个帖子能引起各位的足够重视，也希望有人能能针对不同的写作指导，制定新G的写作提纲。

已有 7 人评分	寄托币	声望	收起理由
foamfly	+ 10	+ 5	很给力!
rita2525		+ 1	赞一个!
yinghuochongfei		+ 1	很给力!
HANgre		+ 2	思路大开，谢谢！！
shimeng0316		+ 1	赞一个!
糖甜甜		+ 1	有道理
okqishi	+ 20	+ 5	好文章