[a习作temp] Argument140 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第3次作业 By Shania [复制链接]

Shania.33
UID：2363464

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 135
注册时间: 2007-7-15
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-26 23:17:56 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument140    WORDS: 535    DATE: 2007-7-28 18:03:28

In this argument, the arguer advocates that Professor Thomas should receive a $10000 raise and to be the Department Chairperson for avoiding her from leaving Elm City University for another college. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites that Professor Thomas is worth her annual salary of $50000 whose classes are among the largest at the university, and she has brought to the research grants has exceeded her salary. In my point of view, the analysis suffers from several flaws as follows.

In the first place, the most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization that Professor Thomas's contribution gives rise to the conclusion. First, Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university, which does not mean she must be popular among students. May be her classes are required courses, or the major classes which are of great importance and the students must pay attention on studying. Secondly, even if the educational ability of Professor Thomas is outstanding, that does not demonstrate that she is competent for the Department Chairperson. It is entire possible that Elm City University will have an impuissant chairperson but loss an expert professor. Finally, may there are some other expert professes and teachers in the Elm City University, or may be there are else eligible person which could be a better chairperson, so the decision should be considered for a reasoned evidence. Without the enough information bases on such factors, the arguer could not persuade the conclusion.

Secondly, the premise of the conclusion is weak. The arguer simply assumes that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. Why the arguer has such a worry is plausible and there is no explanation. Maybe Professor Thomas is used working in Elm City University not only because she suits the comfortable teaching environment but also the love and esteem by students, so she has worked for seventeen years and will go on her career in future. Otherwise, based on this slim information, we can never evaluate the premise of Professor Thomas will leave is convincing.

In addition, the arguer based on the dubious evidence and points out that the money Professor Thomas has to brought to university in research grants has exceeded her salary in last two years. Maybe such a data only could support the condition of last two years, and never be a reasoned evidence to prove it will be lasting in the future. What’s more, if Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college, maybe the acceptance of $10,000 raise and the promotion to Department Chairperson is useless. For the reason that teaching quality, educational equipment and personal progress of a university may be more important for a professor. Thus, it is insufficient to support the arguer's conclusion.

As it stands, the argument seems plausible; in fact, it neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leaves out of key issues, but also cites in the argument, which can not strong support the conclusion. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives that about the condition of Professor Thomas before any decision was made.

==========================================================================

Argument147 要求写提纲前，我练习过，所以麻烦改文章的同学也看看吧，谢谢~
Argument147          字数：457       用时：00:30:00       日期：2007-7-14 11:59:52

In this argument, the arguer advocates that the introduction of such extensive advertising campaign games directed at people 10 to 25 years old by Whirlwind will bring the increasing of dramatically in few months' sales, and cites a survey recently to substantiate the conclusion. In my point of view, the analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the most egregious reasoning is the fallacy of hasty generalization that the arguer simply assumes that the introduction of such extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 by Whirlwind. And which will soar dramatically in few months' sales. First, it is entirely possible that differences between the group of 10 to 25 who directed advertising campaign games and people who were surveyed as the video-game players. Second, even if the players prefer games to providing lifelike graphics, which does not mean they would like to cost money to buy such games. In addition, the arguer should consider the people besides of the age 10 to 25 years old group and what types of games they would prefer to. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer can not confidently persuade us.

Secondly, the premise of the conclusion is weak. The arguer groundless assumes that the sale of Whirlwind trend will be reversed by the advertising introductive group of 10 to 25 which likely to play video games, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. Maybe the advertisement could not bring on a rapidly effect, and the competitors of game companies advent of which have better and cheaper products. Perhaps the age of 10 to 25 of customers which have low purchasing power and could download their favorite games in webnet. No information is supported to the group what the arguer claims and it is unwarranted to convince that premise.

In addition, the survey results as reported by the arguer are too vague to support any firm conclusion. It does not to provide assurances that these respondents of the representative of overall population of people who prefer to playing video-games. Therefore, we are not informed how many people were surveyed but did not respond. What's more, it is entire possible that other people of video-game players have different opinions and favorite video-games. Perhaps their ages all not 10 to 25 years old and they like MMOG and RMOG games. Rely on the merely date from the survey, the arguer should consider more possible condition and the survey lends to credible to support the conclusion.

As it stands, the argument is neither sound nor persuasive. To make it logically acceptable, before any final decisions are made by the Whirlwind video games, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives.

[ 本帖最后由 Shania.33 于 2007-7-28 23:37 编辑 ]

若失去我都不再怕能得到就当烧烟花

回应
0

使用道具举报

shalonbas
UID：2184474

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 8
寄托币: 1106
注册时间: 2006-2-9
精华: 0
帖子: 17

沙发

发表于 2007-8-5 02:12:37 |只看该作者

[By Shalonbas]

Argument140    WORDS: 535    DATE: 2007-7-28 18:03:28

In this argument, the arguer advocates that Professor Thomas should receive a $10000 raise and to be the Department Chairperson for avoiding her from leaving Elm City University for another college. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites that Professor Thomas is worth her annual salary of $50000 whose classes are among the largest at the university, and she has brought to the research grants [which] has exceeded her salary. In my point of view, the analysis suffers from several flaws as follows.

In the first place, the most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization that Professor Thomas's contribution gives rise to the conclusion.[变具体了，呵呵] First, Professor Thomas's’[Thomas’] classes are among the largest at the university, which does not mean she must be popular among students.[这句话不太好，我觉得更应该说成是：The fact that professor Thomas’ classes are among the largest at the university does not necessarily leads to the conclusion that she is popular… …] May be her classes are required courses, or the major classes which are of great importance and the students must pay attention on studying. [这个理由我也用了，呵呵] Secondly, even if the educational ability of Professor Thomas is outstanding, that does not demonstrate that she is competent for the Department Chairperson. It is entire possible[还说我用quite显得太主观，这里用entire不是一样的么:P] that Elm City University will have an impuissant chairperson but loss an expert professor. [有个句型是说“以…为代价的”，at the expense of…，你可以试试]Finally, may[be] there are some other expert professes[sors] and teachers in the Elm City University, or may be[maybe, 这种小错误能免就一定要避免] there are else eligible person which [who, 人不是个东西，恩] could be a better chairperson, so the decision should be considered for a reasoned evidence. Without the enough information bases[based] on such factors, the arguer could not persuade the conclusion.

Secondly, the premise of the conclusion is weak. The arguer simply assumes that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. [很漂亮，赞！]Why the arguer has such a worry is plausible and there is no explanation. Maybe Professor Thomas is used [to] working in Elm City University not only because she suits the comfortable teaching environment but also the love and esteem by students, so she has worked for seventeen years and will go on her career in future. Otherwise, based on this slim information, we can never evaluate the premise of Professor Thomas will leave is convincing. [这个点找的好，但我觉得有些可惜，展开得太少了]

In addition, the arguer based on the dubious evidence and points out that the money Professor Thomas has to[删掉] brought to university in research grants has exceeded her salary in last two years. Maybe such a data only could support the condition of last two years, and [is not sufficient to serve as the evidence…]never be a reasoned evidence to prove it will be lasting in the future. What’s more, if Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college, maybe the acceptance of $10,000 raise and the promotion to Department Chairperson is useless. [怎么又开始说起她走不走的事情了？其实这个钱涨了也有很多可以说啊，研究经费涨不代表她水平高，也许是国家碰巧这几年开始加大对这个方向的投资力度呢] For the reason that teaching quality, educational equipment and personal progress of a university may be more important for a professor. Thus, it is insufficient to support the arguer's conclusion.

As it stands, the argument seems plausible; in fact, it [is] neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leaves[leave] out of key issues, but also cites in the argument, which can not strong support the conclusion. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives that about the condition of Professor Thomas before any decision was made. [怎么说呢，我觉得这段话的模板痕迹重了些，有时间就把这些也改改吧，其实你正文中说得已经很好了，恩。]

[三个攻击段，第一段肯定是你最有把握的，因此写得也最详细；第二段思路也很清晰，可惜展开不够；第三段显得有些生硬，感觉到拼凑的痕迹，不太好。

你的语言一直在进步，小错误也大幅度减少了。我现在的建议是，在已经能够很熟练运用某些模板句子的前提下，尽量能少用或不用，好么？你看本文的最后一段，我把Prof. Thomas一换，就基本可以适用于任何文章了，是吧。

加油~~~]

使用道具举报