寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › argument7 =so what=第一次笑做作业 by gabyw

返回列表

查看: 1056|回复: 4

[a习作temp] argument7 =so what=第一次笑做作业 by gabyw [复制链接]

gabyw
UID: 2633725

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 288
注册时间: 2009-4-26
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-5-24 22:07:50 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

回应
0

使用道具举报

gabyw
UID: 2633725

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 288
注册时间: 2009-4-26
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2009-5-26 13:01:37 |只看该作者

这篇别改了，我参考的，没时间写

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

2006201652
UID: 2496703

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 3
寄托币: 726
注册时间: 2008-5-22
精华: 0
帖子: 60

板凳

发表于 2009-5-26 14:52:55 |只看该作者

2# gabyw
我找不出几个可以修改的地方..

使用道具举报

sha-shine
UID: 2610662

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 47
寄托币: 944
注册时间: 2009-3-4
精华: 0
帖子: 8

地板

发表于 2009-5-26 21:11:50 |只看该作者

我才看到可是已经改完了还是发上来吧以后如果有这样的情况最好用QQ告诉同组人一下也是对别人负责的表现:)
2# gabyw

strive

使用道具举报

sha-shine
UID: 2610662

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 47
寄托币: 944
注册时间: 2009-3-4
精华: 0
帖子: 8

5楼

发表于 2009-5-26 21:15:13 |只看该作者

The editorial recommends that Clearview residents vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun, because Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, and Frank is a member of city –council. To support this recommendation the adtorial（拼写错误editorial） cites a significant increase during the last year in the number of Clearview factories and in the number of Clearview hospital patients treated for respiratory illness. On the bias(这里是要说base吧？) of this evidence the author infers that the current council members are not protecting the city’s environment and that electing Green will solve the city’s environmental（这里应该用environment） problems. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, the argument unfairly assumes that last year’s increase in the number of factories was due to the city council’s decisions-rather than (city council’s decisions-rather than这个在这里是什么意思) to some other phenomenon—and that this increase pose environmental problems for Clearview. The editorial provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the council actually opposed the increase（这里说反对增加，可是缺少反对增加什么） but lacked adequate authority to prevent it, or that the new factories do not harm Clearview environment.
这段主要论证工厂的增加不一定导致环境的污染，论证不够充分，本段说arguer的论证不充分，可是没有足够从具体的方面说他的不充分，可是当添加些，例如：论断没有告诉我们新增的工厂是否是污染型产业，这些工厂有没有采取防止污染的措施，没有这种资料我们无法判断这些工厂对于环境污染的影响程度，因为很可能这些工厂是污染少的新兴产业，或是采取了有效措施。

The argument also assumes unfairly that last year’s increase in the number of patients reporting respiratory problems indicates worsening environmental problems in Clearview. Perhaps the actually incidence of such health problems has not increase, the reported increase is due to increasing awareness among Clearview residents of respiratory illness（“the reported increase is due to increasing awareness among Clearview residents of respiratory illness”这句话不足以说明呼吸疾病的发病率没有增加，如果换成“空气污染的问题是一个全球共同面临的状况，论断没有说明该市与其他相同特征的城市相比，或是与早前的历史相比，这个数字是大是小，从而无法判断”）. Even if the increase of respiratory problems has in fact increased, the increase might be due to influx of people with pre-existing such problems, or to more effective cigarette marketing. （这里所举香烟市场的例子有点狭隘，说服力不强，可是试着换一下，例如：呼吸病发生的原因很多，有天生的，有因为老化的，论断没有说明新增病人的病因是否因为污染引起。）Since the editorial fails to rule out these and other possible explanations for the increase, i can not accept any conclusions about Clearview’s environment—let alone about who voters should elect to city council—based on last year’s hospital records.

Even if the two cited increases to indicate a worsening of Clearview’s environment due to the city council’s decisions, the argument rests on the further assumption that Braun was a factor in those decisions. But, since the editorial provides no evidences to substantiate this assumption it is equally possible that Braun actually opposed the decisions that were responsible for these increase. Thus, without better evidence that Braun contributed to key decisions adversely effecting Clearview’s environment, the editorial remains unconvincing.

Finally, even if Green would in fact be more effective than Braun in solving Clearview’s environment problems, the authors provides no firm evident that electing Green is necessary to solve those problems, or that electing Green would suffice. Perhaps another candidate, or another course of action, would be more effective. Even if Green does everything in her（这里用her不恰当吧~） power as city-council member to solve these problems, perhaps additional measures—such as replacing other council members, and state legislators, or even the state’s governor—would also be required in order to achieve Clearview’s environmental objectives. （这里说的稍微有点牵强，因为现在也有人执政可是环境依然没有得到改善啊）

In conclusion, the editorial’s author can not justify his or her voting recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence provided in the editorial. To better assess the argument I would need to know the scope of the city council’s authority respecting environmental decisions. I would also need to know Braun’s voting record on environmental issues, Green’s experience and position on those issues, and the voters other choice—besides Green and Braun.
文章逻辑思维很紧密，如果能在第二三段提出对Argument的纰漏后更有力的驳倒它就更加的完美了。

strive

使用道具举报