寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › argument113，A也是要每天写的，是不是公众兴趣不太高啊

返回列表

查看: 5848|回复: 6

argument113，A也是要每天写的，是不是公众兴趣不太高啊 [复制链接]

imong
UID：140258

永久会员

Rank: 16

声望: 266
寄托币: 22475
注册时间: 2003-7-14
精华: 88
帖子: 188

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2003-7-26 16:46:47 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

113The following was published by a consumer protection agency.
"Three years ago, So-Low launched a nationwide ad campaign, focusing heavily on sunny regions and distributing free sunglasses there. But although So-Low sunglasses cost less than higher-priced brands, they block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort. A recent study suggests that So-Low sunglasses can actually increase the risk of damage to people's eyes by creating a false sense of security. The study shows a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems in the sunny regions over the past three years. These findings suggest that anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-Low brand and instead either pay for higher-priced brands or wear no sunglasses at all."

113
It is unfortunate that a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems is observed in the sunny region over the past three years, yet to attribute such deterioration to So-Low sunglass is too arbitrary. The validity of the conclusion is worth questioning since the author provided little evidence to justify the claim against So-Low.

First of all, while the sharp increase is observed after So-Low had distributed free sunglasses of inferior quality, no evidence indicated a causal relationship between the two incidents. Obviously, the author has assumed that all the people suffering vision problem in the sunny area have used the So-Low sunglasses, which might not be the case at all. Common sense tells that the free distribution does not equal with one pair for each person. Thus a background investigation among these patients should be conducted to determine how many of them had used this bargain sunglass. It is highly possible that the only a minute proportion have used So-Low, which can afford protection against sun rays even if not as significant as those luxurious ones. In this sense the use of So-Low is not the common trait among these patients since the majority might have never worn it before. Therefore So-Low is wrongfully sentenced as a scapegoat.

What's more, the author fails to take alternative explanations for this survey result into account. Apart from the ad campaign by So-Low in which free sunglasses are distributed, no information is given about, for example, the regional ecological system, which is highly relevant to people's health conditions. It is possible that the solar activity have had a drastic increase within the three years. Therefore within certain duration, people absorb much more harmful sunrays than they do before. Over exposure to sunrays eventually led to vision problems, which has nothing to do with the brand of sunglasses. Thus it is the intensified sun activity but not the So-Low sunglasses that caused the massive eye injury.

In conclusion, the accusation of eye damage against So-Low sunglasses is untenable since the evidence represented is far from adequate. To justify his/her argument the author has to provide statistics on the backgrounds of those vision loss patients and eliminate the effect of ecological factors on the investigation.
43min

已有 1 人评分	声望	收起理由
葡萄熟了	+ 1	imong 你太帅了呵呵

总评分: 声望 + 1 查看全部投币

Rien de réel ne peut être menacé.
Rien d'irréel n'existe.

回应
0

使用道具举报

wenwenchao
UID：87067

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 62
注册时间: 2001-11-5
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2003-7-26 17:36:19 |只看该作者

好建议阿，不过总是觉得issue难些，所以。。。

使用道具举报

imong
UID：140258

永久会员

Rank: 16

声望: 266
寄托币: 22475
注册时间: 2003-7-14
精华: 88
帖子: 188

板凳

发表于 2003-7-26 18:23:42 |只看该作者

按理说argument容易一些
更应该熟练，用来往上拉分啊

Rien de réel ne peut être menacé.
Rien d'irréel n'existe.

使用道具举报

paisley
UID：64183

永久会员

Rank: 16

声望: 6
寄托币: 55110
注册时间: 2001-9-3
精华: 212
帖子: 419

地板

发表于 2003-7-26 18:39:31 |只看该作者

对呀，所以我一般只改ISSUE，不喜欢改ARGUMENT。

而且我觉得imong以你ISSUE的水平，ARGUMENT应该很不错的。不需要怎么看了。呵呵

UA
我说人生哪，如果赏过一回痛哭淋漓的风景，写一篇杜鹃啼血的文章，与一个赏心悦目的人错肩，也就够了。不要收藏美、钤印美，让美随风而逝。生命最清醉的时候，是将万里长江视为一匹白绢，裂帛。(简桢)

使用道具举报

imong
UID：140258

永久会员

Rank: 16

声望: 266
寄托币: 22475
注册时间: 2003-7-14
精华: 88
帖子: 188

5楼

发表于 2003-7-26 20:18:14 |只看该作者

呵呵，难说哦
再说我的issue都是修改得冠冕堂皇之后再拿上来挨骂的
还没有人看见过我写过的草稿呢，恶心得很哦

Rien de réel ne peut être menacé.
Rien d'irréel n'existe.

使用道具举报

zhusha2008
UID：182749

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 294
注册时间: 2004-10-19
精华: 1
帖子: 0

6楼

发表于 2005-2-20 15:53:07 |只看该作者

A113 my first
The argument recommends that people who concerned about eye damage from the eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-low brand and instead higher-priced brands or no sunglasses. To support his recommendation, he cited the nationwide ad campaign So-low launched three years ago and indicates that the So-low glasses create a false sense of security and causes increased vision problems in the past three years. However, the argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

First, the argument unfairly concludes from the broad study and its conclusion. We are not told about where did the study conducted and what portion of population had been covered, so the study might not be statistic credible. The fact indicated from the argument that So-low sunglasses cost less than higher-priced brands and block a smaller proportion of the Sun’s rays explains that So-low brands are just some alternatives for people who want to wear sunglasses. There is no evidence that the so-called “false sense of security” is caused by So-low sunglasses.

Second, the argument relies on the questionable assumption that the increased vision problems are the result of the false sense of security that So-low provides. But the argument provides little evidence to substantiate to the assumption. What’s more, the argument provides no evidence that those people with vision problems last three years are wearing Sun-low brands. It is possible these sunny regions receive more energy from the sun last three years,. And the argument overlooks several other possible reasons that might explain the increased vision problems. Unless more information is provided, the argument cannot convince the causal relationship between the So-low brands and increased vision problems.

Finally, the argument draws a hasty conclusion that anyone who concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-low brand and instead higher-priced brands or no sunglasses at all. As we are informed in the argument, the So-low sunglasses block a smaller proportion of the Sun’s rays, the fact that higher-priced brands are more effective than the So-low brands strengthens that possibility that people wearing high-priced brands instead will have more false sense of security.

In sum, the arguer cannot justify his recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence provided in the argument. To strengthen the credibility of the argument, we need more information about the Sun-low brands and the increased incidences of vision problems. We should also need the information the higher-priced brands are going to prevent the problems So-low brands cause.

使用道具举报