[习作点评] ＋＋＋新手作文容易犯的几个问题＋＋＋ 14楼补充对短发mm关于argu开头疑问的解答 [复制链接]

yogurt4
UID：198389

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 795
寄托币: 42412
注册时间: 2005-3-2
精华: 21
帖子: 2083

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-6-20 04:49:45 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2010-6-27 00:34 编辑

世界杯如火如荼进行当中，可敬（可怜）是准备考试的同志还在坚持写作文。现在是考试淡季，组长辛苦，队员辛苦，大家还都在写第二次作业第三次作业。我就勤劳的来写一写新手入门容易范的几个错误吧。看一下节约新手的时间。本篇绝对不适用于一篇作文都没写过的伪新手，尤其适合issue写了不到五篇的入门级。因为我看的issue比较多，所以主要问题集中在issue。另外，被我当作反面教材的同志千万不要追杀我！！例子全部来自这几天版面上的作文，我就不提供原始link了。

问题一：没有任何内容的假大空语句泛滥。

题目：issue17 - "There are two types of laws: justand unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey justlaws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

例子：The speaker asserts that laws can be categorizedinto two types: just ones that everyone should obey and unjust ones everyindividual should disobey and resist. This claim seems appealing at the firstglance. However, with further consideration, especially into the part ofdisobeying and resisting unjust laws, I think it is inappropriate and tooextreme.

点评：重复了一下题目的内容。无功无过。我的个人观点是改作文的人是看得见题目的，没有必要重复题目的内容。但是issue题目重复一下问题不大。剩下的内容，从Thisclaim开始就是假大空范畴了，只在结尾点出了作者反对的立场。作者反对的理由是什么？没有写。如果实在时间紧迫不能提出支撑自己立场的主要（注意是主要，不是罗列所有）论点，那么就请开门见山直接说同意不同意。言之有物是一种美德，简洁更是。

还有一种隐蔽型的假大空开头，就是写社会发展，科技进步。大部分题目开头都可以写工业革命发展啦，技术进步啦，人类生活变好啦。但是可以写不等于写了就合适。如果说写一句是帮助你扯到题目的关键词好接着往下摆观点，写两句除了浪费你的时间我就没看出来第二个好处。这种假大空很难被发现，更好使，所以写的人更多。用用没问题，别过头。

题目：ARGUMENT161 - In a study of reading habits ofLeeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondentssaid they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-upstudy conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book mostfrequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was themystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the firststudy had misrepresented their reading habits.

习作： In this argument, the arguer draws the conclusion that the first studyconcerning the reading habits of Leeville citizens fails to be representativeand the result is inaccurate and untrustworthy .This assumption is based on anapparent discrepancy between the favourite reading material as literal classicsclaimed y most respondents in the first study and the type of book mostfrequently checked out in public libraries in Leeville as mystery novels . Atfirst glance it may reasonable. But after a careful examination of thisargument ,however, reveals how groundless the conclusion is .

点评：更崩溃的是写argument的时候把题目的内容总结一遍放在开头的，真是有时间。然后后面正文写着写着时间不够了，草草收场。这种“虎”头蛇尾的argument,看得我暴躁暴躁暴躁！Argument开头贴出来超过三行的同志请小心。