- 最后登录
- 2021-3-25
- 在线时间
- 1606 小时
- 寄托币
- 42141
- 声望
- 2018
- 注册时间
- 2008-7-31
- 阅读权限
- 175
- 帖子
- 258
- 精华
- 11
- 积分
- 23029
- UID
- 2524907
- 声望
- 2018
- 寄托币
- 42141
- 注册时间
- 2008-7-31
- 精华
- 11
- 帖子
- 258
|
AW篇
对于3.5这个分数,我承认有些许失望;因为自己对AW期望还算挺高的,现在回想起来也觉得不冤枉,因为AW的最后时间(我是8月21日考)我只能保证每天五个小时的投入量,其他时间去了看跳水、体操、篮球、女排的比赛。那时候也是我轻敌的开始……
ISSUE篇
这是我的弱项,实在没有太多建议能给大家,对不起啊;不过我也看了很多人写有关ISSUE方面的经验,也结合所看的XDF的书,也说说我的看法吧。我所用的ISSUE是李建林的《GRE写作5.5 ISSUE 篇》,其前两章对于ISSUE的写法很有见解;另外对于每篇文章都有分析。至于GRE作文大讲堂,我看了两天就没有看了,觉得帮助不大,而且当中的文章难于模仿,参考价值小。我认为正确的方法是找所有题目的范文,最好是北美范文,不求背诵当中的句子(也千万不要背,否则被判抄袭),主要是了解写作思路也就是文章的切入点。当你觉得看见文章不会无话可说时,这步就算是成功了。
我当初写ISSUE的时候,刚开始就放了一个星期;因为看见论坛的经验帖说ARGU好准备,建议先准备ARGU,我觉得这个方法有合理的地方。只是我却把这个当作回避ISSUE的借口,以至于把过多的时间花在ARGU上,也因此加剧了ISSUE的不足。这点希望后来人能谨记。
练习方面不需要不所有题目都写,这样做时间也不够,但至少把高频及各种题型都写过;这样就不至于遇到没写过的题目时太慌张……ISSUE还有一个选择的机会,至少可以选择一个较为熟悉的。
ARGU篇
我真的想说:成也ARGU,败也ARGU。曾经我也模仿XDF对于ARGU的写法,直到在8月3日在寄托上看见有人介绍:imong空之追星剑(GTER的老前辈)特训,令我对ARGU的看法产生重大改变!建议大家无论如何也要看一看,XDF教导的ARGU写法撑了就写个3.5,如果希望ARGU能写得更好,真的要找来看一看。因此我ARGU也没有买什么书,基本上自己也可以分析了,但是下载一份提纲及范文还是有必要的,参考着来看就可以了。我发现自己掌握了真理,因此也兴奋了一段时间;同时我也有点飘飘然,因此花在ARGU的时间也少了,有时间却在论坛上找写ARGU的人,然后跟别人讨论,那时候很享受这种感觉,结果最后AW考试时ARGU是一篇我连提纲都没有看过的低频,没有丝毫的准备。虽然按照分析写了,但是自己也觉得没有经过很好的逻辑安排。现在仅摘录一篇我对别人ARGU的评论,希望对大家有帮助:(当经过这样几次之后,ARGU水平就会有质的飞跃!)
ARGUMENT68,随便看看提点意见,周五就要考了
TOPIC: ARGUMENT68 - The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the City of Grandview.
"To avoid a budget deficit next year, the City of Grandview must eliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony. Our citizens are well aware of the fact that while the Grandview Symphony Orchestra was struggling to succeed, our city government promised annual funding to help support its programs. Last year, however, private contributions to the Symphony increased by 200 percent, and attendance at the Symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The Symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Such developments indicate that the Symphony can now succeed without funding from city government and we can eliminate that expense from next year's budget. This action will surely prevent a budget deficit."
WORDS: 513 TIME: 0:32:39 DATE: 2008-8-13
In this memo, the author suggests that city government do not need to fund for Grandview Symphony, and the action will surely prevent a budget deficit. The argument is logically sound at first glance. However, further scrutiny reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws as it stands.
The threshold problem with this memo is that attendance doubled and private contributions increased are not sufficient to show that Symphony can succeed without funding from city government. Firstly, the mere fact that private contributions increased by 200 percent is not adequate to demonstrate that private contributions are enough for Symphony. We are not informed the actual funding number of private contributions and city governments. It is high possible that ever though the private funding has increased 200 percent, its total money is also far less than government funding, and do so little contributions to the Symphony. Secondly, attendance at the Symphony's concert-in-the-park series doubled do not means the Symphony has got lucrative profits. Maybe because the series in located in a park, it is entirely funded by some companies or governments, and free for all attendances, while the concerts which are really hold by the Symphony have so few attendance, then there is not chance for them to get profits. Without considering and roll out these and other possible explanations, the author cannot confidently claim the Symphony can succeed without funding from city government.
Even granted that the Symphony can succeed without funding, the author unfairly suggest that city government should eliminate that expense from next year's budget. The author assumes that funding for the Symphony has not other merits. It is more likely that through funding from governments, the Symphony can produce more shows to the public and take more concerts-in-the-park series, then the Symphony will make much more lucrative profits, which is far more that the number of funding by governments. It will probably helpful to avoid a budget deficit. Lacking such evidence, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion.
Even if the government eliminates the expense for funding the Symphony, the author make a hasty claim this action will surely prevent a budget deficit. The author didn't provide any information about the percentage of funding for the Symphony occupying in the whole budget. Perhaps, funding for the Symphony is a relatively small number, compared to other funding and help, for example, funding for research in the institution, funding for other form of culture development, and funding for city's basic construction. The author didn't make a fully comparison with these funding. Maybe, their number of funding is far more than funding for Symphony. Without accounting for these possibilities, the author cannot make a unsupported claim that it will prevent a budget deficit.
In sum, the author's suggestion is ill conceived and poorly supported. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis are needed. We need to get more information about the Symphony's current profits, and the funding number of private contributions. We also need to know the detailed use of whole budget to determine whether funding for Symphony is important.
我的评论:
楼主的文笔相当出色,行文流畅;而且513的字数也是相当不错的,虽然超时2分钟;以本人的语言水平,在这方面恐怕只能说楼主的好话而给不了太多建议了,在逻辑方面,我觉得大家还可以讨论一下。
本题的逻辑:为了减少**赤字,建议取消对GSO(Grandview Symphony Orchestra )的财政资助;然后列举了GSO不需要财政资助的理由。
楼主的思路:第一段先反驳那些所谓的理由(相当详尽及到位的反驳);第二段我看得不是太明白,楼主想说:fund GSP有可能产生利益,进而减少**赤字?(我持保留意见,觉得有点牵强)第三段是说即使取消资助也不见得可以解决赤字。
首先有几个问题:
第一,为什么会产生赤字?
第二,不资助GSP就能解决赤字问题吗?
第三,为什么**要资助GSP?
第四,GSP需要资助吗?
有三个问题楼主都解决了。其中第一段相当精彩,反驳了GSP不需要资助的理由。至于第三段就是针对第一和第二个问题进行反驳,其实这两个问题实质是一至的,分开列出的原因在于第一点才是最值得强调,而第二点的论述是为辅助第一点的;而第一点也正是整篇ARGU的立足点!我觉得楼主在第三段的论述上应有所侧重,而且也应该把反驳主力放在这一点上。
至于第三个问题源于题目“Our citizens are well aware of the fact that while the Grandview Symphony Orchestra was struggling to succeed, our city government promised annual funding to help support its programs. ”也就是说市民认识到GSP争取成功的那份决心(用了strggling)以及**答应资助这一点。
有可能是以下这种情况:GSP在市民的心中是本市某种精神的代表,因而享有较高民望,所以**也决定每年拨款支持。就像广州人很支持歌手张敬轩一样……如果取消对GSP的支持,则可能使**失信,继而导致民众支持度下跌(这对**来说是个大问题!)。也就是资助GSP不仅有关钱的问题,还有人民情感的因素在里面,我认为这是另外一个需要在文章中点明的问题。
不知道楼主认不认同?
[ 本帖最后由 frank_chow 于 2008-11-25 00:29 编辑 ] |
-
总评分: 寄托币 + 20
查看全部投币
|