[未归类] Argument31 第一篇，谢谢拍 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 86
注册时间: 2010-3-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2010-6-4 22:55:20 |只看该作者

恩。我们互改吧，呵呵，我会改得慢点，要耐心等哈，呵呵，真高兴。(*^__^*) 嘻嘻……

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 86
注册时间: 2010-3-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2010-6-5 13:32:54 |只看该作者

In the argument, the author concludes that the legislation of the new law is unnecessary and folly through the statement that quite few accident happen since drivers use phones and he analogy of mobile phone and other distraction. The conclusion, however, is not as plausible as it seems since the evidences (evidence 不可数名词)
and reasons are not so convincing and incontrovertible.（感觉不是特通顺，可以直接写 The conclusion, however, is not as plausible as it stands. 因为后面会具体分析说证据不合理或者没有说服力。恩，至于这些开头模板都有一些很好的句式的，如果需要的话，我可以发给你一份）
Foremost, the argument is relying on （+the assumption）that the majority (+of )people don`t cause problems with cell phone. Yet, what is the exact meaning of ‘majority’? (这样说好不？the author does not provide clear evidence showing that it is the case.) Maybe,(Perhaps) the proportion of accidents mentioned is 5 percent or even lower. But, with the huge population, it still indicates a great amount of people suffering from the problem, which actually should be paid more attention on(to). So without (可以直接说 Without) the accurate number or the percentage (statistics), it is hard to convince me that the number of the accidents which are caused by the drivers using mobile phones can be neglected.
（考试时每段段首顶格写，不用空两格，段与段之间空一格）

Even assuming that the number or the percentage is low enough, the conclusion is not so reasonable in some way.（the author overlooks the harmfulness of the behavior of using cells while driving. 我改的不好，但我觉得还是接着说理由吧。） The not-high-percentage doesn`t imply that there are no accidents（no accident）. And the argument (author) also can`t
（最好是cannot 尽量不要缩写）deny that some people do cause really (换个副词吧，呵呵，或者不要也行) serious accidents, which is undoubted（和前面cannot deny重复了）and maybe these kind of accidents are exceedingly dangerous or even fatal than(没有比较级) the others.（这样写好不？The author cannot overlook that using cells while driving do cause serious accidents, which are significantly more dangerous than other kinds of activities.）So, that the argument tried to ignore the possibility of problems and the necessity of the law is not that persuasive.(恩，是要总结一下，但换个句式吧？)

Besides those above, the analogy offered here is not conclusive, either. (Besides, the analogy between other kinds of activities and using cells might be unsubstantiated.) Admittedly, listening to the music or disciplining children will also interfere the drivers, but it is doubtful that both of these will lead to serious car accidents just as using cell phones does. Perhaps these two distractions result in far fewer problems, like only 1 or 2 in the whole state in one year while more than 5 or 6 hundreds accidents resulting from phones in one month in the same state. And even the analogy is correct, the writer is unable to provide the reasons why there is no need to restrict people listening to music when they drive, let alone to draw the conclusion that forbidding handed-phone-use is insignificant and stupid. (我觉得这个类比不合理可以换个说法，因为听音乐和管教孩子之类的可以只用嘴巴，不要用手和眼睛，所以对开车的影响比较小。)

In sum, with the uncertain incidence, inappropriate analogy and questionable inference, the argument is not potent enough to show the meaninglessness of enacting the law. And more precise numbers showing the low possibility of the accidents and more proper evidence to demonstrate that using phones is not so dangerous will be useful and instrumental to strengthen the argument.
（最后一段需要指出这个Argument在哪些方面可以改进以利于bolster 他的assertion或者recommendation，而且要指出为了更好的评判这个argument还需要哪些证据。）
1# tyarel

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 86
注册时间: 2010-3-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

地板

发表于 2010-6-5 14:40:41 |只看该作者

你们写作文的这个时间，字数，日期是自动生成的吧？用的什么软件啊？

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 86
注册时间: 2010-3-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2010-6-5 20:28:55 |只看该作者

我今天又写了一篇，Argument 13，帮我改下吧？呵呵，谢谢！:)

In this memo, the chief executive recommends that it is a wise investment to purchase the rights to produce a video game based on “Squrrel Power (SP)”. To support his recommendation the executive cites that Wood of this book has published other best sellers. The executive also points out that they will save the costs by saving money in developing their video games. For several reasons, the evidence offered in support for the recommendation provides little credible support for it.

First, the recommendation relies on the assumption that 'SP', a soon-to-be-published children's book wrote by Wood, will be a best-seller. Since the executive provides no information about this book, though Wood's last three books have been best sellers, it is entirely possible that this new book will go contrarily. Without considering and eliminating this possibility, the executive cannot convincingly conclude based on that Wood published three best sellers that this new book will be popular and therefore the video game based on it will be profitable.

Secondly, the mere fact that the movie based on Wood's first book was highly profitable proves nothing about either his new book will be popular or the video game based on his new book will be profitable as well. Perhaps his new book is not suitable to be adapted to a video game. Or perhaps Wood's books are just suitable to be adapted to produce movies. Under either scenario, the recommendation is unconvincingly.

Thirdly, even though the characters and story line in "SP" are very popular which save them time and costs in developing the video game, this does not necessarily indicate this company will have lower costs. The executive might overlooks other factors that contribute to the increasing cost. For example, the cost of programming will be higher. As it shows in the memo, the cost of the rings is substantial, therefore the price of the video game will surely be high and few people are willing to play it, which will render the company a financial crisis.

Finally, the executive points out that buying the rights will place a economic constraints on their company in the short-term, and the executive provides no information about how they will solve this problem. Considering that the after producing procedures also need more funds, the survival of the company is open to doubt, so it is hard to assess the feasibility of the recommendation.

In conclusion, the executive's recommendation is ill-founded. To strength it the executive must provide clear evidence that Wood's new book will be a best seller and fit to be adapted to a video game. Finally, to better evaluate the recommendation I would need more information about what measures the company will take to solve the financial problem.

tyarel
UID：2756223

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 5
寄托币: 434
注册时间: 2010-1-28
精华: 0
帖子: 4

6楼

发表于 2010-6-9 09:03:28 |只看该作者

5# 小付 作文是用AWp173写的，模考的界面，论坛里应该有下载的，最近哈忙，可能作文改得写的比较慢哈，抱歉抱歉，一起加油～

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 86
注册时间: 2010-3-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2010-6-9 20:39:12 |只看该作者

没关系啦，呵呵，加油！！！ 6# tyarel

tyarel
UID：2756223

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 5
寄托币: 434
注册时间: 2010-1-28
精华: 0
帖子: 4

8楼

发表于 2010-6-12 01:35:53 |只看该作者

5# 小付
Argument 13
In this memo, thechief executive recommends that it is a wise investment to purchase the rightsto produce a video game based on “Squrrel Power (SP)”. To support hisrecommendation the executive cites that Wood of this book has published other bestsellers. The executive also points out that they will save the costs by saving money(save time吧？) in developing their video games. For severalreasons, the evidence offered in support for(insupport of，表支持，是想用这个意思吧？) the recommendation provides littlecredible support (可用bolster之类的，保证词汇使用的多样性，毕竟一个句子里2次用support感觉比较重复枯燥)for it.
First, therecommendation relies on the assumption that 'SP', asoon-to-be-published children's book wrote by Wood(这种都可以写的简单点，把soon-to-be-published放到SP前面去以后，这里都可以精简点), will be a best-seller. Since theexecutive provides no information about this book, though Wood's last threebooks have been best sellers, it is entirely possible that this new book willgo contrarily. Without considering and eliminating this possibility, the executive cannot convincingly conclude based on thatWood published three best sellers that this new book will be popular andtherefore the video game based on it will be profitable.（个人觉得最好可以把这个长句拆开来，或者写得简单点，现在句子成份怪怪的，我不敢说一定错了，但是不建议用太长的复杂句，容易造成歧义或出错）
(另外，针对这段的反驳我觉得没有针对到点子上，或者说论述的不够清晰，段前段后2遍对作者观点的进行重复，并且都用了很长的从句详细的描述，没有必要，最多一遍可以了，这个不是重点。论述可以再细致开来的，为什么不能从以前的3部推出现在这部可能的销售情况？2者之间可能存在什么差异，比如：题材，风格，市场流行的趋势甚至于售价？这些“他因”都有可能导致arg从前三部书推到这本即将出版的书会畅销的推理是有漏洞的，这样你的反驳才比较有内容，比较有说服力。我觉得论述出哪里有推理漏洞或者不合理才是最重要，最花笔墨的！)
Secondly, the merefact that the movie based on Wood's first book was highly profitable provesnothing about either his new book will be popular(个人觉得argu本来就没打算用电影说明书会畅销吧？可以略去)or the video game based on his new bookwill be profitable as well. Perhaps his new book is not suitable to be adaptedto a video game. Or perhaps Wood's books are just suitable to be adapted toproduce movies. Under either scenario, the recommendation is unconvincingly.（unconvincing）(我觉得也可以稍微提下为什么适合电影改变或者不适合游戏，比如说，画面感很强适合镜头表达；或者整部人物相互之间的互动很少，或者题材比较严肃，改编成游戏可能没有多少可玩性啊；还是要丰富一点反驳的论述)
Thirdly, eventhough the characters and story line in "SP" are very popular which save（will save） them time and costs in developing the video game, this does notnecessarily indicate this company will have lower costs. The executive might overlooks other factors that contributeto the increasing cost. For example, the cost of programming will be higher. (这里确实可以讲一下哪些因素会提高成本，但我个人认为例子举的不太好；最好这个提升成本的原因在本来自主开发游戏中不会出现；这样才能比较出，买下版权并不比自主开发来得成本低；比如，argu自己就提供了一个很明显的可做比较的项目：“通过节省时间省下的成本”与“购买版权的花费”那个更大？如果买版权需要的钱多过剩下来的钱了，那成本降低这一说就不成立了吧？？你说呢？)As it shows in the memo, the cost of the rings(这个是什么意思？成本环？成本链？好像没见过这个用法，lz最好再去查一下) is substantial, thereforethe price of the video game will surely be high and few people are willing toplay it, (这里提出的理由也是不严谨的，surely慎用，在讲究逻辑的argu里，很难说多少东西是surely的，成本固定就表示售价一定会很高嘛？薄利多销通过长卖来赚钱也是有可行性的，不能一口咬定售价就会高，然后高售价就更不能推出人们不愿意买了，有口碑有质量的大作依然可以保证大卖，这个我就不举例子了。所以反驳的时候同样要谨慎，这里过于武断了)which will render the company a financialcrisis.
Finally,the executive points out that buying the rights will place a(an) economicconstraints on their company in the short-term, and the executive provides noinformation about how they will solve this problem. Considering that the afterproducing procedures also need more funds, the survival of the companyis open to doubt, so it is hard to assess the feasibility of therecommendation.（我个人认为这段的反驳有待商榷，这个如果可以还是希望lz问问看更有经验的已经考过的人，让步的部分不是论据，没有用来支持论点，所以我对于反驳的必要性有点怀疑。或者至少这个不是一个主要的反驳点，还是应该把更多笔墨放到前面的重点去）
In conclusion, theexecutive's recommendation is ill-founded. To strength it the executive mustprovide clear evidence that Wood's new book will be a best seller and fit to beadapted to a video game. Finally, to better evaluate the recommendation I wouldneed more information about what measures the company will take to solve thefinancial problem.