- 最后登录
- 2020-4-2
- 在线时间
- 1369 小时
- 寄托币
- 5445
- 声望
- 340
- 注册时间
- 2011-8-3
- 阅读权限
- 35
- 帖子
- 443
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 2038
- UID
- 3143968
 
- 声望
- 340
- 寄托币
- 5445
- 注册时间
- 2011-8-3
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 443
|
本帖最后由 leijerry888 于 2012-2-6 08:28 编辑
首先，列出自己先找出的主要逻辑关系和其中可能存在的问题（请往死里拍！！！）：
1 调查说人们喜欢（什么样的调查；喜欢就会用么）
2 人们不用河（如何得知）
3 公园管理没投钱维护（不投钱的原因是否正当）
4 人们抱怨水质（如何得知，抱怨水质时候水质就真的有问题，抱怨是否真实）
5 州里开始投钱清理水质（只是说了计划，万一计划N年后清理，那明年就让市政府投钱也没用）
6 因此水上运动增加（且不说所有客观条件满足的话，人们会不会去运动，除去水质，会不会有别的更重要的原因导致人们不进行运动）
7 因此市政府应投钱
Essay Response — Score 6
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
总起全文，让步的指出题目的结论，说明题目中充满不足信的假设
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
第一个逻辑错误：survey是否可信。指出survey不可信的可能原因。
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
第二个逻辑错误：人们不使用河流是由于河水污染。指出两者的因果关系不明。指出应提供广泛可信的调查来找出人们不使用河流的真正原因
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.
第三个逻辑错误：清理河水可以导致对河流的使用提高。指出清理可能无法解决污染问题（基于第二段的假设，认为人们不使用河流就是由于污染问题），因此，清理可能就无法导致对河流使用的提高。
此段：①在开头特别指出是建立在第二段所指因果逻辑关系成立的基础上；②结尾处再次重申无论此段的逻辑关系是否成立，上一段中的逻辑关系依然有问题。这两处体现出了评分标准中要求的logically organized和段落之间的clear transitions。
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.
结尾，重申，题目中的结论也许是有道理的，但是argument没有说服力。
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
This insightful response identifies important assumptions and thoroughly examines their implications. The proposal to spend more on riverside recreational facilities rests on three questionable assumptions, namely:
that the survey provides a reliable basis for budget planning
that the river’s pollution and odor are the only reasons for its limited recreational use
that efforts to clean the water and remove the odor will be successful
By showing that each assumption is highly suspect, this essay demonstrates the weakness of the entire argument. For example, paragraph 2 points out that the survey might not have used a representative sample, might have offered limited choices, and might have contained very few questions on water sports.
Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and limited use of the river for recreation. Complaints about water quality and odor may be coming from only a few people and, even if such complaints are numerous, other completely different factors may be much more significant in reducing river usage. Finally, paragraph 4 explains that certain geologic features may prevent effective river clean-up. Details such as these provide compelling support.
In addition, careful organization ensures that each new point builds upon the previous ones. For example, note the clear transitions at the beginning of paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the logical sequence of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).
Although this essay does contain minor errors, it still conveys ideas fluently. Note the effective word choices (e.g., "rife with . . . assumptions" and "may have swayed residents"). In addition, sentences are not merely varied; they also display skillful embedding of subordinate elements. For example, note the sustained parallelism in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph.
Since this response offers cogent examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a score of 6.
Essay Response — Score 5
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities.
第一个逻辑错误：人们对survey的回答可能与实际行为不同，且即使相同，调查只是说水上运动是最喜欢的运动之一，调查未考虑其他最喜欢运动的影响。
Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.
第二个逻辑错误：水质与人们对河水使用之间是否有因果关系，有如何的因果关系。指出解决方案是更加细致的survey。
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up.
第三个逻辑错误：州政府announce plan之后执行的情况未知。
Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.
第四个逻辑错误：市政府如果投钱，钱从哪来是argument未考虑的。
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.
结尾，指出argument说服力不够，需要更多的信息来做定夺。
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 5
Each paragraph in the body of this perceptive essay identifies and examines an unstated assumption that is crucial to the argument. The major assumptions discussed are:
that a survey can accurately predict behavior
that cleaning the river will, in itself, increase recreational usage
that state plans to clean the river will actually be realized
that Mason City can afford to spend more on riverside recreational facilities
Support within each paragraph is both thoughtful and thorough. For example, paragraph 2 points out vagueness in the wording of the survey: Even if water sports rank among the favorite recreational activities of Mason City residents, other sports may still be much more popular. Thus, if the first assumption proves unwarranted, the argument to fund riverside facilities — rather than soccer fields or golf courses — becomes much weaker. Paragraph 4 considers several reasons why river clean-up plans may not be successful (the plans may be nothing more than campaign promises or funding may not be adequate). Thus, the weakness of the third assumption undermines the argument that river recreation will increase and riverside improvements will be needed at all.
Instead of dismissing each assumption in isolation, this response places them in a logical order and considers their connections. Note the appropriate transitions between and within paragraphs, clarifying the links among the assumptions (e.g., "Closely linked to the surveys …" or "The answer to this question requires...").
Along with strong development, this response also displays facility with language. Minor errors in punctuation are present, but word choices are apt and sentences suitably varied in pattern and length. The response uses a number of rhetorical questions, but the implied answers are always clear enough to support the points being made.
Thus, the response satisfies all requirements for a score of 5, but its development is not thorough or compelling enough for a 6.
Essay Response — Score 4
The problem with the arguement is the assumption that if the Mason River were cleaned up, that people would use it for water sports and recreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those same people have the financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests.
指出argument的问题：河水清理则人们会去使用河流。指出逻辑错误：即使人们说水上运动是最爱，也不一定有能力去进行这项运动。
各人认为这一段的构成不是很合理，尤其在第一局上，感觉对于开头而言，比较片面。且第二句和第一句没什么关系。
However, even if the writer of the arguement is correct in assuming that the Mason River will be used more by the city's residents, the arguement does not say why the recreational facilities need more money. If recreational facilities already exist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund them? If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in the coming years, then they will be making more money for themselves, eliminating the need for the city government to devote more money to them.
在上一段中逻辑关系成立的基础上，指出第二个逻辑错误：argument中未说明投钱的用处具体是什么。
According to the arguement, the reason people are not using the Mason River for water sports is because of the smell and the quality of water, not because the recreational facilities are unacceptable.
指出第三个逻辑错误：既然argument自己说是由于污染问题，人们不使用河流，那么就不是设施问题，干嘛还要让市政府给设施投钱。
个人认为这个点选的很好，很体现逻辑洞察力，只是展开的还略显不足。
If the city government alloted more money to the recreational facilities, then the budget is being cut from some other important city project. Also, if the assumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not use the river for recreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for the recreational facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the river to attract more people in the first place.
这个结尾有点遗憾，写出盲目认同argument结论的后果。感觉有点只呻吟，不开药。
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 4
This competent response identifies two unstated assumptions:
that cleaning up the Mason River will lead to increased recreational use
that existing facilities along the river need more funding
Paragraph 1 offers reasons why the first assumption is questionable (e.g., residents may not have the necessary time or money for water sports). Similarly, paragraphs 2 and 3 explain that riverside recreational facilities may already be adequate and may, in fact, produce additional income if usage increases. Thus, the response is adequately developed and satisfactorily organized to show how the argument depends on questionable assumptions.
However, this essay does not rise to a score of 5 because it fails to consider several other unstated assumptions (e.g., that the survey is reliable or that the efforts to clean the river will be successful). Furthermore, the final paragraph makes some extraneous, unsupported assertions of its own. Mason City may actually have a budget surplus so that cuts to other projects will not be necessary, and cleaning the river may provide other real benefits even if it is not used more for water sports.
This response is generally free of errors in grammar and usage and displays sufficient control of language to support a score of 4.
列出几点最直接的感想总结：
1、找出的逻辑错误点不能太少，而且要找主要矛盾。
2、每段一个逻辑错误，条理清晰。且在段首或尾加上承接词句，体现逻辑关系和文章结构组织的条理性，也可快速的轰出字数。
3、开头写出argument的结论，清晰的点明它存在问题。结尾也要清晰的用呈上的句子，然后再次指出由题目假设给出结论是有问题的。
4、感觉和issue相比，对语言的运用要求有所讲题，至少感觉范文比issue的容易读懂了（不知道是不是错觉），但是毫无疑问的是，6分文章逻辑性极强，细细读起来沁人心脾。
第一次解除ARGUE文章，请大家多拍，指出我的问题，先谢过各位了！
Jerry Lei
2012年2月6日0:30 @home |
|
GO
发表于 2012-2-4 00:23:18
回应
发表于 2012-2-4 00:28:29
25fall hkumed phd informal meeting实验室ap和research officer一起问的1.自我介绍，ap介绍了一下实验室2....
自我介绍为什么选择香港未来打算，就业还是读博项目里你觉得哪个比较有挑战想学到什么反问
1.自我介绍2.你的专业背景和工作经历可以怎么帮助你学习这个项目3.职业规划4.工作中遇到的困难，你是如何应...
港理工Phd面试记录自我介绍老师提问：1.哪些是独立完成的工作2.Motivation Inovation分别是什么交流环节...
转发
