寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › argument38 互拍互利哈

返回列表

查看: 730|回复: 5

[a习作temp] argument38 互拍互利哈 [复制链接]

clearbaby
UID：2114410

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 545
注册时间: 2005-7-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-25 10:44:24 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户共用时间：30分53秒 509 words
从2005年6月25日10时26分到2005年6月25日10时30分
------题目------
The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
'An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that using Ichithaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate the argument, the arguer cites a study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high and people are healthier. Meanwhile, to further justify the claim, the arguer points out that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat logical. A careful examination of it, nonetheless, hardly can the reasoning be valid if only on the strength of this evidence.

To begin with, the survey is too vague to be reliable. Firstly, we were no informed that how many people were studied. It is possible that the amount of surveyed people were too small to draw a reliable conclusion. Secondly, the study cited that people could be healthier though eating more fishes, while suggestive of this, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the samples were representative of the whole groups. Perhaps 1000 subjects were studied but no more than 10 were valid. If so, we cannot get a convincing conclusion.

In addition, the analysis draw between East Meria and West Meria are highly suspect because there are many differences. For example, maybe the weather is wetter in East Meria than in West Meria, which is suitable for people' s living. And it is also possible that the environment in East Meria is much better than in West Meria. In this case, the people in East Meria is logical healthier than in West Meria. So the mere fact that the people are healthier in East Meria is insufficient to draw the conclusion that fish can prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

Furthermore, the arguer depends on the gratuitous assumption that health is relative to eating fish. Actually, it is not necessary the case. This conclusion is groundless. The arguer fails to consider other possible reasons. For example, people in East Meria are able to practice more and have better living habits. They are careful of their own bodies. They drink less alcohol and usually go to abroud. Anyhow, they do many other things other than eating fishes. So there is no sufficient evidence to explain that health only results in eating more fishes.

Finally, the arguer thinks that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year means they are healthy, which is gratuitous. There is no necessary relevant between the two. It is likely that when people caught colds or had some indispositions, they didn’t go to see a doctor, but only take some pales at home. So the explanation is unconvincing.

To sum up, this argument is not well reasoning and lacks credibility because the evidence quoted in the analysis does not support what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more valid, the arguer needs to make more effective and representative survey such as scientific reports about the relationship between health and eating fishes, to support this argument.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-25 at 12:58 ]

8.17 济南

回应
0

使用道具举报

clearbaby
UID：2114410

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 545
注册时间: 2005-7-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-7-25 21:10:08 |只看该作者

想请问一下 [ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-25 at 12:58 ] 是什么意思呢，谢谢~~

8.17 济南

使用道具举报

vprzhs
UID：144409

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 719
注册时间: 2003-9-6
精华: 0
帖子: 2

板凳

发表于 2005-7-26 16:56:43 |只看该作者

In this argument, the arguer recommends that using Ichithaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate the argument, the arguer cites a study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high and people are healthier. Meanwhile, to further justify the claim, the arguer points out that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat logical. A careful examination of it, nonetheless, hardly can the reasoning be valid if only on the strength of this evidence.

To begin with, the survey is too vague to be reliable. (Firstly), we were no(是否该改为not？no我觉得是修饰名词) informed that how many people were studied. It is possible that the amount of surveyed people were too small to draw a reliable conclusion. (Secondly), the study cited that people could be healthier though eating more fishes, while suggestive of this, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the samples were representative of the whole groups. (Perhaps 1000 subjects were studied but no more than 10 were valid). If so, we cannot get a convincing conclusion.(firstly是讲样本的大小， secondly着重样本调查的效度。从大的来讲，都是讲数字的大小。反驳survey,除了样本大小，还有地区分布，年龄分布。这些都可以攻击，其实我觉得攻击样本的错误，只有弄一个通用模板，每次都往上套就可以了。您认为呢？)

In addition, (the analysis draw between East Meria and West Meria are highly suspect because there are many differences)(个人觉得意思可以，但表达不是很地道，请再斟酌用词). For example, maybe the weather is wetter in East Meria than (that,是weather比较，不是状语比较吧？)in West Meria, which is (suitable)(more suitable,前面不是在比较么？) for people's living. And it is also possible that the environment in East Meria is much (better)(太笼统了，是如何better呢？绿化好？污染少？还是什么原因？如此笼统只让人觉得你语言驾驭能力不强。) than in West Meria. In this case, the people in East Meria is (logical) healthier than in West Meria. So the mere fact that the people are healthier in East Meria is insufficient to draw the conclusion that fish can prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

Furthermore, the arguer depends on the gratuitous assumption that health is relative to eating fish. (Actually, it is not necessary the case. This conclusion is groundless)(两句重复了，删去其中一句废话). The arguer fails to consider other possible reasons. (For example)(举例你就会for example么？for instance? Another example is***? common sense tells us that***? in order to see this point clearly, let us see an example,***?措辞多样性。。), people in East Meria are able to (practice more)(do more exercise) and have better living habits. They are careful of their own bodies. They drink less alcohol and (usually go to abroud)(什么意思？). Anyhow, they do many other things other than eating fishes. So there is no sufficient evidence to explain that health only results in eating more fishes.(他们的饮食结构是很大的批驳点啊，他们不仅仅只吃鱼吧？为什么不考虑这点呢？)

Finally, the arguer (thinks)(assumes比较好，有什么好think的) that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year means they are healthy, which is (gratuitous)(上面一段用过了，换词). There is no necessary relevant between the two. It is likely that when people caught colds or had some indispositions, they didn’t go to see a doctor, but only take some pales at home. So the explanation is unconvincing.

To sum up, this argument is not well reasoning and lacks credibility because the evidence quoted in the analysis does not support what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more valid, the arguer needs to make more effective and representative survey such as scientific reports about the relationship between health and eating fishes, to support this argument.

(攻击点找得没错，首段的语言衔接在下觉得很好！可是你反驳时贪多不烂，分析不深入。建议写三个主要的谬误，其他的稍微点题即可。

在下说得有不当之处，碍于水平不高，还望见谅。在下新作尚无，届时还望兄弟指点一二。)

05.10.22 。。。。
～～广外～～

使用道具举报

clearbaby
UID：2114410

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 545
注册时间: 2005-7-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

地板

发表于 2005-7-26 17:00:46 |只看该作者

恩，很有道理，我觉得我的argu就是批的不够彻底，谢谢指教，以后一定回拍。共同进步，呵呵~~

8.17 济南

使用道具举报

clearbaby
UID：2114410

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 545
注册时间: 2005-7-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2005-7-26 17:43:57 |只看该作者

改后的，呵呵，请再指教

In this argument, the arguer recommends that using Ichithaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To substantiate the argument, the arguer cites a study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high and people are healthier. Meanwhile, to further justify the claim, the arguer points out that eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat logical. A careful examination of it, nonetheless, hardly can the reasoning be valid if only on the strength of this evidence.

To begin with, the survey is too vague to be reliable. Firstly, we were not informed that how many people were studied. It is possible that the amount of surveyed people were too small to draw a reliable conclusion. Secondly, the study cited that people could be healthier through eating more fishes, while suggestive of this, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the samples were representative of the whole groups. For instance, it has the possibility that the surveyed people were mostly young and healthy. Even though without eating much fishes, they also had the ability to keep health in the whole year. As for the reasons referred above, perhaps 1000 subjects were studied but no more than 10 were valid. If so, we cannot get a convincing conclusion.

In addition, the analysis draw between East Meria and West Meria are highly suspect because there are many differences. For example, maybe the weather is wetter in East Meria than in West Meria, which is more suitable for people' s living. And it is also possible that the environment in East Meria is much better than in West Meria, such as there are more trees and less pollution in East Meria. In this case, the people in East Meria are deserved healthier than in West Meria. So the mere fact that the people are healthier in East Meria is insufficient to draw the conclusion that fish can prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

Furthermore, the arguer depends on the gratuitous assumption that health is relative to eating fish. Actually, it is not necessary the case. The arguer fails to consider other possible reasons. For instance, people in East Meria are able to do more exercise and have better living habits. They are careful of their own bodies. They drink less alcohol and usually walk outdoors for fresh air. On the side, they are able to enjoy many other foods other than fishes. There is no evidence to show that health is not relative to other foods. So there is no sufficient evidence to explain that health only results in eating more fishes.

Finally, the arguer assumes that people visit the doctor only once or twice per year means they are healthy, which is baseless. There is no necessary relevant between the two. It is likely that when people caught colds or had some indispositions, they didn’t go to see a doctor, but only take some pales at home. So the explanation is unconvincing.

To sum up, this argument is not well reasoning and lacks credibility because the evidence quoted in the analysis does not support what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more valid, the arguer needs to make more effective and representative survey such as scientific reports about the relationship between health and eating fishes, to support this argument.

将文章又做了改动，现在是578words，第二段里的两个方面虽然都有数字，但第一个强调的是样本容积小，而第二个强调的是代表性不强，可能我的表达不到位的，呵呵~~

现在找的错误多些，到考场上肯定写不这么，最多也就写三个吧。

谢谢指正，如有时间，请再指教，呵呵~~~

[ Last edited by clearbaby on 2005-7-26 at 17:50 ]

8.17 济南

使用道具举报