本帖最后由 bzr2915 于 2010-1-25 14:38 编辑
OK 第一次作业从ARGUMENT开始吧
Sample Argument Topic
【Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate
the need for more protective equipment.(调查类错误,此处并未指明调查的总体规模,抑或是个体情况是否适于普遍性).Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.).(此处作者提出了带护具就能减免ROLLER SKATERS事故的假设,<缺乏证据>充分必要类错误) Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in(因果关系混淆,此处说的是投资高质量的配备导致结果,而此投资与ROLLER SKATERS之间并没有直接关系<买了是否会会穿,买什么样的?>) high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.(此处GEAR与injured之间存在充分必要类错误)】
Essay Response * – Score 6
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion .After all, it is the intent of these products to either provent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur.However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.(长短句结合,转折递进层次清晰,对驳论部分给予了相当的重视,进行了较详细的论述。让步转折结构--GEAR与PROTECTION之间--充分必要类错误)
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as
light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn
others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the
"other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention.
Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater
or some force of nature.Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to
reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more
interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only,
those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a
clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.(从两种GEAR 功能上显著的不同提出文中样本取样的漏洞,总-分-总结构,点出调查类错误,方法学错误)
The argument above is weakened by the fact that(模板化句子)it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and repsonsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.(方法类错误,带护具的个体与不带护具个体之间有差异) The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. (对重伤进行质疑)The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment(也许受轻伤的SKATORS 也会去急诊室治疗)
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is
any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same
preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are
encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual
pieces of gear would be helpful.(high quality is not necessary for the individual)
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and
potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made
in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. After all, a false
confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.(总结并对上段驳论进行强调)
|