寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › 915冲刺只写高频-argu篇-共勉求互改

返回列表

查看: 1982|回复: 11

[习作点评] 915冲刺只写高频-argu篇-共勉求互改 [复制链接]

xydxuyidan
UID: 3153716

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 10
寄托币: 1280
注册时间: 2011-8-17
精华: 0
帖子: 189

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-9-3 21:44:06 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 xydxuyidan 于 2012-9-4 12:26 编辑

9月4号更新，在8楼求批改求建议~~~~~~~~~~~~

9.3：
求宝贵建议，谢谢~！感觉自己句式还不丰富，不善变化。。。

原文和提纲如下：
1. 作者假定90天足够长，并且大部分时间都在使用暖气；还假定天气预报很准确很权威
2. 假定新家都会安装并使用oil。但其实可能会有新能源如电暖，出于环保。
3. 假定公司会获利，投资有必要。但其实可能有其他巨头公司，很难再打开市场了。

In this argument, the arguer believes that the demand for heating oil will increase and investment in Consolidated Industries (CI) is needed. While this may seem reasonable at first glance, the conclusion is based on invalid assumptions.

First of all, the author assumes that the climate in the next few years will remain nearly the same. This means, at first place, the author believes that people are using the heating system in the 90 days with below-normal temperatures. This is not convincing because we do not have relating statistics. We do not know the exact temperature. Maybe in reality it was not cold at all and it was not necessary to use the heating system, or they only used it for a week. Another statement is based on the prediction of climate forecasters. The arguer holds the assumption that the result of the prediction is precise and thus the climate will not experience apparent changes. However, we lack information about which institution the forecasters are from and what method they used to predict. Maybe the result is just from a group of college students who are interested in meteorology. According to our experience, we can feel that the climate is changing every year. It is difficult to determine the climate of next year, not to say of the next several years.

Moreover, the arguer implies that the new homes will be equipped with heating equipment and they will use it when it turns cold. This is also unwarranted. On the one hand, some poor families could not afford the heating system and they will not have it in their new house. So, while there are more houses, there may not be more demand for the fuel. On the other hand, in order to protect our environment, some families may choose to reduce their dependence on heating. They prefer to do more exercise to keep warm. It is also possible that oil will be replaced by new types of energy, like power, which may be cheaper and more eco-friendly. Without information of these possibilities, we are not sure whether the demand of oil will go up.

Furthermore, the author suggests investment in Consolidated Industries based on the assumption that the company will make profits in this region. There may have been, however, several big companies supplying oil for family heating before CI enters this region. Therefore, it will be difficult for CI, a new company, to open its market because of too much competence. Even it has proportion in the market, maybe two years later oil will not be the major fuel for heating, and these companies will close. Then the investment may be a waste of money. To strengthen his argument, the author had better do more market research before drawing a conclusion.

All factors taken into account, the author’s argument is not based on sound reasoning. The prediction of more demand for heating oil and the recommendation of investment are not yet tenable. In order to support his opinion, the author should provide evidence which is more persuasive.

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.12.03

回应
0

使用道具举报

Basilisk
UID: 2617854

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 42
寄托币: 510
注册时间: 2009-3-18
精华: 0
帖子: 239

沙发

发表于 2012-9-4 05:24:52 |只看该作者

有两点没有攻击到位。
heating oil是traditional方法，而房子是新建的。
CI公司是retail market的，而人们可以通过wholesale买。（例如这些房子是出租的apartment，则tenant通过property manager来买。）

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

xydxuyidan
UID: 3153716

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 10
寄托币: 1280
注册时间: 2011-8-17
精华: 0
帖子: 189

板凳

发表于 2012-9-4 09:48:42 |只看该作者

Basilisk 发表于 2012-9-4 05:24
有两点没有攻击到位。
heating oil是traditional方法，而房子是新建的。
CI公司是retail market的，而人们 ...

谢谢！我想知道argue是找出所有漏洞吗？还是说找出主要的

使用道具举报

Basilisk
UID: 2617854

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 42
寄托币: 510
注册时间: 2009-3-18
精华: 0
帖子: 239

地板

发表于 2012-9-4 09:53:53 |只看该作者

xydxuyidan 发表于 2012-9-4 09:48
谢谢！我想知道argue是找出所有漏洞吗？还是说找出主要的

汗。。。我觉得你需要仔细读一下OG。
我在本版写过一个对官方范文的理解，沉深不知处。。。

使用道具举报

xydxuyidan
UID: 3153716

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 10
寄托币: 1280
注册时间: 2011-8-17
精华: 0
帖子: 189

5楼

发表于 2012-9-4 10:03:34 |只看该作者

Basilisk 发表于 2012-9-4 09:53
汗。。。我觉得你需要仔细读一下OG。
我在本版写过一个对官方范文的理解，沉深不知处。。。

谢谢！你有argue的习作吗，我想学习学习！

使用道具举报

Basilisk
UID: 2617854

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 42
寄托币: 510
注册时间: 2009-3-18
精华: 0
帖子: 239

6楼

发表于 2012-9-4 10:13:06 |只看该作者

xydxuyidan 发表于 2012-9-4 10:03
谢谢！你有argue的习作吗，我想学习学习！

饿。。。你还是学习ets的吧。。。OG上practice test里面还有一套6-1分范文。。。
argu我还没怎么写。。。

使用道具举报

xydxuyidan
UID: 3153716

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 10
寄托币: 1280
注册时间: 2011-8-17
精华: 0
帖子: 189

7楼

发表于 2012-9-4 10:27:14 |只看该作者

Basilisk 发表于 2012-9-4 10:13
饿。。。你还是学习ets的吧。。。OG上practice test里面还有一套6-1分范文。。。
argu我还没怎么写。。。 ...

好的~谢谢，共勉！

使用道具举报

xydxuyidan
UID: 3153716

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 10
寄托币: 1280
注册时间: 2011-8-17
精华: 0
帖子: 189

8楼

发表于 2012-9-4 12:09:29 |只看该作者

2012.9.4 ARGUment123(同41、125)
提纲和原文如下，内容跟附件中一样：
1. 调查数据是否准确？问题设计是否科学？能否反映真实情况？（可能说自己带头盔了但实际没带）
2. 带了安全帽就增加了安全感吗？安全帽质量差了，真的可以避免事故？
3. 事故只是因为头盔引起的吗？可能是安全意识下降，也可能是机动车多，交通混乱，现代自行车速度快。
4. 教育措施可以减少事故？政府不认真安排；

In this argument, the arguer advocates that the government should launch an education program focusing on factors other than helmet in order to reduce injuries from bicycle accidents. To support his conclusion, the arguer shows that the percentage of people wearing helmets has increased. Meanwhile, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has doubled. He believes people feel safer when wearing helmets and they are more likely to take risks. Although it may seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact unfounded and my questions are presented as follows.

The first question I want to ask is whether the statics about helmets and bicycle accidents are precise. It is possible that the research was carried out by a small institution, using ill-designed methods. It is difficult to ensure that they have investigated all the bicyclists. Maybe in fact, the institution has only included half of them and got invalid research results. The arguer has also neglected the possibility that people might tell a lie when they are answering the questions. Some people want to appear disciplined and they are not willing to tell the truth in the research. Unless the arguer can provide information to answer these questions, these statics cannot reflect the real conditions.

Even if the statics are convincing, we cannot say that the increased accidents are caused by wearing helmets. For example, more cars may appear during the ten years. On the one hand, careless car drivers may run into bicycles. Thus, the possibility of bicycle accidents will rise, but not due to helmets. On the other hand, with more and more cars, those traffic lanes for bicycles may be changed into car lanes. As a consequence, bicycles will not have enough space and riders are likely to have accidents. Another possibility is that bicyclists tend not to obey traffic rules. Many young people would like to have exciting bicycle races, so they are likely to hurt themselves if they ride too fast. Moreover, if the helmets today are not as qualified as ten years ago, people are not likely to feel safer just because they are wearing helmets. The author should eliminate such possibilities so as to make a cogent argument.

Another question in my heart is whether the education program will have the effect of reducing injuries from bicycle accidents. If the program turns out to be quite boring, people will not take it seriously, not to say learn something from it. Or if the government does not have enough money to support such a program and it could only run for a week, the educational result will not be satisfying, either. Also, from our common sense, it cannot be a wise choice to omit emphasis on helmet when carrying out an education program about bicycle.

To sum up, the argument mentioned above is not based on sound reasoning. To make this argument more demonstrative, the arguer should provide more information to draw the conclusion that people take more risks when they are wearing helmets. Also, the author should give evidence about the effectiveness of the education program.

514words

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册