[未归类] issue170 (hand-in-hand 砍 ) [复制链接]

望天
UID：2106455

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1957
注册时间: 2005-6-4
精华: 0
帖子: 11

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-2-10 19:16:20 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 170 - For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.
1:fails to ruling out other factors: bad service quality, low quality.
2: fails to convince us that the process will be applicable for killing the bacteria. Sophisticated technology, skilled technician. highly invest.
3: consumer is not predisposed to change their choice of pursuing AC instead buy from. the low price and high service quality. and high quality of oyster.

Based on several unpersuasive evidence and assumptions, the arguer conclude that Gulf Coast will gain much more profit after using a new process of killing the bacteria which have found in Gulf Coast oysters. At first glance, it seems sound, careful inspection of each of the evidence referred in the argument, however, reveals that none of them is reliable to support the conclusion. As discussed below.

In the first place, the arguer have not shown enough evidence to convince us that the new process of killing the bacterial is applicable and effective in killing the bacterial found in the Gulf Coaster oysters. As we all know, not all new technologies could be used once they were invented, because the utilization of them probably needs paying a lot of money to purchase, and maintain them when they are out of work. As for this, the argument fails to cite any evidence to ensure his/her so-called new process devised by some scientist is suitable to the Gulf Coast. It might be the case that Gulf Coast could not afford the highly cost in pursuing of this equipment, and even have not employed skilled employee to operate and maintain this new equipment. In addition, even if Gulf Coast has the ability to buy that equipment, the efficiency of the new technology is not ensured. It is probable that when this new process of killing bacteria put into practice it does not act well, and the direct consequence might be the lower efficiency in killing the bacteria found in Gulf Coast oysters. Therefore, without consider those possibilities, it weakens the reliability of this conclusion.

In the second place, granted that the new technology adopted by Gulf Coast will act as they hoped, the assumption that consumers will be likely to buy oysters from Gulf Coast when the safety of oysters is aware is open to question. It is entirely possible that consumers are predisposed to believe that Atlantic Coast provides oyster of better quality with them than does Gulf Coast, not only the quality of oysters but also the lower price of oysters, and better service than Gulf Coast. And there is another possibility that consumers hardly believe that Gulf Coast could kill the bacteria effectively as they hope. Thus, failure to refer these probabilities the argument is unsound as it stands.

Thirdly, even if consumers intend to purse oysters from Gulf Coast, that is not to say that the profit gained by Gulf Coast will increase. Here, the arguer lends no material involved other factors which will influence the amount of profit. It is entirely possible that one of its competitors has supplied much better quality of oysters for a long time; they have received increasing popularity among consumers. As a result, consumers would likely to buy more from them rather than Gulf Coast.

In conclusion, to strengthen the argument, the arguer should cite more evidence, such as the applicability of the new process used in killing the bacteria found in oysters in Gulf Coast, the competitive pressure from competitors, and the trend of consumers pursuing.

置之死地而后生！

回应
0

使用道具举报

dzg2006
UID：2154669

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 989
注册时间: 2005-11-4
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2006-2-10 19:57:15 |只看该作者

issue170 (hand-in-hand 砍 )

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 170 - For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. (Price.) This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow. (Final conclusion. )
1:fails to ruling out other factors: bad service quality, low quality.
2: fails to convince us that the process will be applicable for killing the bacteria. Sophisticated technology, skilled technician. highly invest.
3: consumer is not predisposed to change their choice of pursuing AC instead buy from. the low price and high service quality. and high quality of oyster.

Based on several unpersuasive evidence and assumptions, the arguer conclude that Gulf Coast will gain much more profit after using a new process of killing the bacteria which have found in Gulf Coast oysters. (I think this is not the final conclusion. The final conclusion is shown on the highlighted portion of the question shown above. ) At first glance, it seems sound, careful inspection of each of the evidence referred in the argument, however, reveals that none of them is reliable to support the conclusion. (I suggest you to replace this part with summary of all fallacies. I can show you one sample argument with “6” from ETS. You can read the comment.) As discussed below.

In the first place, the arguer have not shown enough evidence to convince us that the new process of killing the bacterial is applicable and effective in killing the bacterial found in the Gulf Coaster oysters. As we all know, not all new technologies could be used once they were invented, because the utilization of them probably needs paying a lot of money to purchase, and maintain them when they are out of work. (You can add: Consequently, this may increase the cost of Gulf Coaster oyster.) As for this, the argument fails to cite any evidence to ensure his/her so-called new process devised by some scientist is suitable to the Gulf Coast. It might be the case that Gulf Coast could not afford the highly cost in pursuing of this equipment, and even have not employed skilled employee to operate and maintain this new equipment. In addition, even if Gulf Coast has the ability to buy that equipment, the efficiency of the new technology is not ensured. It is probable that when this new process of killing bacteria put into practice it does not act well, and the direct consequence might be the lower efficiency in killing the bacteria found in Gulf Coast oysters. Therefore, without consider those possibilities, it weakens the reliability of this conclusion.

In the second place, even if it is true that Gulf Coast can kill the bacteria effectively as they hope, granted that the new technology adopted by Gulf Coast will act as they hoped, the assumption that consumers will be likely to buy oysters from Gulf Coast when the safety of oysters is aware is open to question. It is entirely possible that consumers are predisposed to believe that Atlantic Coast provides oyster of better quality with them than does Gulf Coast, not only the quality of oysters but also the lower price of oysters, (Read the question.) and better service than Gulf Coast. And there is another possibility that consumers hardly believe that Gulf Coast could kill the bacteria effectively as they hope. (put at the beginning of this paragraph.) Thus, failure to refer these probabilities the argument is unsound as it stands.

Thirdly, even if consumers intend to purse oysters from Gulf Coast, that is not to say that the profit gained by Gulf Coast will increase. Here, the arguer lends no material involved other factors which will influence the amount of profit. It is entirely possible that one of its competitors has supplied much better quality of oysters for a long time; they have received increasing popularity among consumers. As a result, consumers would likely to buy more from them rather than Gulf Coast.

In conclusion, to strengthen the argument, the arguer should cite more evidence, such as the applicability of the new process used in killing the bacteria found in oysters in Gulf Coast, the competitive pressure from competitors, and the trend of consumers pursuing.

[ 本帖最后由 dzg2006 于 2006-2-10 20:00 编辑 ]

使用道具举报

dzg2006
UID：2154669

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 989
注册时间: 2005-11-4
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2006-2-10 20:01:08 |只看该作者

Sample

Sample Argument from ETS

A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.  Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.  In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.  Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

Sample Response (Score 6):

The argument contains several facets that are questionable.  First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton.  In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations.  I will discuss each of these facets in turn.

In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted.  If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was.  If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist.  Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people.  In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways.  For example, were the survey respondents old people?  Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region?  Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.

Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable.  The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth.  But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.  In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.

Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.  For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped.  It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.  It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above.  The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.  It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.

Commentary by ETS:

This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable."  The author then develops the critique around three main points:

-- the reliability and generalizability of the survey results are open to question;
-- the argument assumes that a correlation amounts to a causal relationship; and
-- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the survey.

Each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail.

The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.  The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs.  The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt.  Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique.  For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.

原文（PP3中的范文材料）:
A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth.  Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life.  In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently.  Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

范文的批驳（听birdf说这个是经典）:
In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the survey respondents old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.

我的批驳：
In evaluating the results of the survey, one must consider the following factors: 1. Objectiveness of the survey. The questions should not be designed in such a way that they lead or induce the subjects to respond in a particular way. 2. Representativeness of the survey results. The subjects of the survey should be randomly chosen and should be broad enough to represent a general behavior or opinion. If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, it would then be unfair to blame Smile Bright for the increase in the risk of needing capped teeth. 3. Scope of the survey results. The generic characteristics of the subjects determine the scope—the domain or realm in which the survey results are reliable to be used for inference. For example, if the survey was done on old people, then the survey results can only show that there is correlation between the use of Smile Bright and the need for capped teeth within the old people. In the analysis, however, the author fails to provide sufficient information which renders it impossible to evaluate the objectiveness, the representativeness and the scope of the survey results and to use them for inference.

使用道具举报