[a习作temp] ARGUMENT38[Coursework-01]-Coffee Team Of Latte@Hunson [复制链接]

hunson
UID：2147580

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 284
注册时间: 2005-10-13
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-12-21 18:20:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：
38.The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public
Health Council. (考频:28)
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to
significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study
reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high,
people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of
colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.
Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school
and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement
derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower
absenteeism."
提纲:
第一段
1：归纳论点，说明论点有问题，准备发起进攻
  缺勤->感冒_>吃鱼->推荐鱼油产品
2：攻击论点（论据本身不成立）
缺勤->感冒
感冒和缺勤并没必然联系，也有有它原因，比如有台风，交通状况不好，当地旧业气氛很宽松加上当地薪水低而消费高，造成流行打第二份工才能养家，感冒可能是一个很好得借口不去上班或学校，不一定人们真正得了感冒；
第二段
2：攻击论据（论据本身不成立）
论证结构：总——分——总
A有这样的结果，不一定是这个事情造成的。（1、其它原因 2、因果倒置 3、原因的真实性）吃鱼不一定能导致感冒减少，也许是East Meria当地的气候问题或者居民打了预防针什么的，或者跟其他饮食因素有关，或者当地人注重锻炼，从而吃鱼和减少少感冒之间没有必然的因果联系
第三段
攻击论证（类比不成立）
论证结构：总——分——总
A和B不同，A发生，B不一定可以发生。（范围不同、作用程度不同、时间不同、主客观不同：人的主观能力、因果倒置、事物与外界联系、不是说的一个事、是否能类比、会不会发生化学反应而改变、偷换概念、饱和度、绝对数量和相对数量、参照物不同、有其他的改变、还需要其他的条件限制或起作用、量够不够、程度）B有自己的特点。
不能简单的拿East Meria和本地类比，也许本地人根本就不喜欢吃鱼或者根本没有足够的鱼可吃，或者是沙漠缺水地区产鱼量少鱼的价格很贵，一般本人根本吃不起，或者因为习惯根本不吃鱼。
第四段：
分-分
也没证据表明吃鱼油产品一定能预防感冒，毕竟鱼油和鱼是完全不同的东西而且上面的论据摘自一个健康咨询机构的宣传单，本身的正确性就值得怀疑，说吃鱼其实是为了在吃鱼比较不容易的地方推销鱼油产品的说法，本身论据就很脆弱，不一定公正。
第五段
  总结段
正文：
In this argument, the arguer assumes that take fish oil product, Ichthaid by name , could reduce the frequency of getting cold by a study of East Meria ,that eat a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, and thus could reduce the absenteeism in schools and workplaces at West Meria. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be plausible, but by a thorough examination of this argument would find it fails to some critical fallacies.

  First of all, the cold and the absenteeism bear none of associated cause and effect relationship.
It is possible that the habitants of West Meria sometimes suffer form bad climate such Tornado or downfall, so as to be unwilling to take the job, or that the low Salary according to the payout make the citizens must find another part-time job by utilizing the absent time to make up. Therefore ,the viewpoint that cold induce absenteeism is groundless or unfounded.

Secondly, even the cold is the main reason of absent form workplaces or schools, the arguer also make a false conclusion that, at West Meria, people catch few cold only by reason of taking fish as daily food. Maybe ,the environment of East Meria in a more warm climate is better than that of West Meria ,or the dwellers of East Meria are conditioned to do exercise regularly, or even epidemic prevention had just been done in a full range . Under these circumstances, consuming adequate fish would not effectively bear the function of preventing cold any more.

In a addition, on the assumption for sure that taking fish is in effect, but no evidence could be convinced it would be applicable in West Meria. In fact, Many factors may baffle the fish-eating consideration, such as scanty of lake or fishpond to yield fish ,and thereby price here is high more than inhabitants could afford, or in the extreme the West Meria's residents have a disrelish for fish. therefore, the arguer commits the false belief in establishing a causal relationship between eating fish and lowering colds.

Final but not he last, the arguer hurriedly amplify on that the daily use of the Ichthaid as a substitute for fish would prevent cold. Even if taking Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and consequently being capable of lowering absenteeism, it seems that it is not the only panacea. As we know, the fish contains a lot of nutrition which are all beneficial to people's health, so we can't oversimplify the curative effect of other component and merely aggrandize the ingredients of abstracted fish oil product, the Ichthaid. Moreover, on the account of the fact that the memo appeared in a newsletter by a profitable Health Council with suspicious propensity, the argument suffers from the veracious assessment of the Ichthaid.

  All in all, the conclusion reached in this memo is not subjective and maybe misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should have to provide the inevitable connection between eating fish, lowering colds, reducing absenteeism, and necessity of taking Ichthaid as substitute for fish. hence, the arguer must rule out the aforementioned possibility that may weaken the arguer’s conclusion.

[ Last edited by hunson on 2005-12-23 at 08:04 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

taotaoQ
UID：2105710

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1541
注册时间: 2005-6-1
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2005-12-21 22:43:26 |只看该作者

厉害厉害,只能找出一些拼写失误

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to
significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study
reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high,
people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of
colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.
Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school
and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement
derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower
absenteeism."
提纲:
第一段
1：归纳论点，说明论点有问题，准备发起进攻
  缺勤->感冒_>吃鱼->推荐鱼油产品
2：攻击论点（论据本身不成立）
缺勤->感冒
感冒和缺勤并没必然联系，也有有它原因，比如有台风，交通状况不好，当地旧业气氛很宽松加上当地薪水低而消费高，造成流行打第二份工才能养家，感冒可能是一个很好得借口不去上班或学校，不一定人们真正得了感冒；
第二段
2：攻击论据（论据本身不成立）
论证结构：总——分——总
A有这样的结果，不一定是这个事情造成的。（1、其它原因 2、因果倒置 3、原因的真实性）吃鱼不一定能导致感冒减少，也许是East Meria当地的气候问题或者居民打了预防针什么的，或者跟其他饮食因素有关，或者当地人注重锻炼，从而吃鱼和减少少感冒之间没有必然的因果联系
第三段
攻击论证（类比不成立）
论证结构：总——分——总
A和B不同，A发生，B不一定可以发生。（范围不同、作用程度不同、时间不同、主客观不同：人的主观能力、因果倒置、事物与外界联系、不是说的一个事、是否能类比、会不会发生化学反应而改变、偷换概念、饱和度、绝对数量和相对数量、参照物不同、有其他的改变、还需要其他的条件限制或起作用、量够不够、程度）B有自己的特点。
不能简单的拿East Meria和本地类比，也许本地人根本就不喜欢吃鱼或者根本没有足够的鱼可吃，或者是沙漠缺水地区产鱼量少鱼的价格很贵，一般本人根本吃不起，或者因为习惯根本不吃鱼。
第四段：
分-分
也没证据表明吃鱼油产品一定能预防感冒，毕竟鱼油和鱼是完全不同的东西而且上面的论据摘自一个健康咨询机构的宣传单，本身的正确性就值得怀疑，说吃鱼其实是为了在吃鱼比较不容易的地方推销鱼油产品的说法，本身论据就很脆弱，不一定公正。
第五段
  总结段
正文：
In this argument, the arguer assumes that take fish oil product, Ichthaid by name , could reduce the frequency of getting cold by a study of East Meria ,that eat a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, and thus could reduce the absenteeism in schools and workplaces at West Meria. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be plausible, but by a thorough examination of this argument would find it fails to some critical fallacies.

  First of all, the cold and the absenteeism bear none of associated cause and effect relationship.
It is possible that the habitants of West Meria sometimes suffer form（from） bad climate such (as)Tornado or downfall, so as to be unwilling to take the job, or that the low Salary according to the payout make the citizens must find another part-time job by utilizing the absent time to make up. Therefore ,the viewpoint that cold induce absenteeism is groundless or unfounded.

Secondly, even the cold is the main reason of absent form(from) workplaces or schools, the arguer also make(makes) a false conclusion that, at West Meria, people catch few cold only by reason of taking fish as daily food. Maybe ,the environment of East Meria in a more warm climate is better than that of West Meria ,or the dwellers of East Meria are conditioned to do exercise regularly, or even epidemic prevention had just been done in a full range . Under these circumstances, consuming adequate fish would not effectively bear the function of preventing cold any more.

In a(an) addition, on the assumption for sure that taking fish is in effect, but no evidence could be convinced it would be applicable in West Meria. In fact, Many factors may baffle the fish-eating consideration, such as scanty of lake or fishpond to yield fish ,and thereby price here is high more than inhabitants could afford, or in the extreme the West Meria's residents have a disrelish for fish. therefore, the arguer commits the false belief in establishing a causal relationship between eating fish and lowering colds.

Final but not he(the) last, the arguer hurriedly amplify on that the daily use of the Ichthaid as a substitute for fish would prevent cold. Even if taking Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and consequently being capable of lowering absenteeism, it seems that it is not the only panacea. As we know, the fish contains a lot of nutrition which all beneficial to people's health, so we can't oversimplify the curative effect of other component and merely aggrandize the ingredients of abstracted fish oil product, the Ichthaid. Moreover, on the account of the fact that the memo appeared in a newsletter by a profitable Health Council with suspicious propensity, the argument suffers from the veracious assessment of the Ichthaid.

  All in all, the conclusion reached in this memo is not subjective and maybe misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should have to provide the inevitable connection between eating fish, lowering colds, reducing absenteeism, and necessity of taking Ichthaid as substitute for fish. hence, the arguer must rule out the aforementioned possibility that may weaken the arguer’s conclusion

每天都是SUNNY DAY

使用道具举报

hunson
UID：2147580

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 284
注册时间: 2005-10-13
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2005-12-21 23:02:49 |只看该作者

一个考今年gre和gmat双料的牛牛给我改的，感谢

正文：
In this argument, the arguer assumes that take (taking)fish oil product, Ichthaid by name , could reduce the frequency of getting cold by (according to) a study of East Meria that eat (eating) a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, and thus could reduce the absenteeism in schools and workplaces at West Meria. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be plausible, but by a thorough examination of this argument would find it fails to (suffers from) some critical fallacies.

First of all, the cold and the absenteeism bear none of associated cause and effect relationship.
It is possible that the habitants of West Meria sometimes suffer form bad climate such as Tornado or downfall, so as to be unwilling to take the job. or (Or) that the low salary according to the payout makes the citizens must find another part-time job by utilizing the absent time to make up (taking up extra time, which may lead to absenteeism). Therefore ,the viewpoint that cold induces absenteeism is groundless or (and) unfounded.

Secondly, even the cold is the main reason of absent (being absent) from workplaces or schools, the arguer also makes a false conclusion that, at West Meria, people catch few cold only by reason of taking fish as daily food. Maybe ,the environment of East Meria in a more warm climate is better than that of West Meria ,or the dwellers of East Meria are conditioned to do exercise regularly, or even epidemic prevention had (have) just been done in a full range . Under these circumstances, consuming adequate fish would not effectively bear the function of preventing cold any more.

In a addition, on the assumption for sure that taking fish is in effect, but no evidence could be convinced (convince me that) it would be applicable in West Meria as well. In fact, many factors may baffle the fish-eating consideration, such as scanty of lake or fishpond to yield fish ,and thereby price here is high more (higher) than inhabitants could afford, or in the extreme the West Meria's residents have a disrelish for fish. Therefore, the arguer commits the false belief in establishing a causal relationship between eating fish and lowering colds.

Final but not he last, the arguer hurriedly amplify on that the daily use of the Ichthaid as a substitute for fish would prevent cold. Even if taking Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and consequently being capable of lowering absenteeism, it seems that it is perhaps not the only panacea. As we know, the fish contains a lot of nutrition which are (is) all beneficial to people's health, so we can't oversimplify the curative effect of other component and merely aggrandize the ingredients of abstracted fish oil product, the Ichthaid. Moreover, on the account of the fact that the memo appeared in a newsletter by a profitable Health Council with suspicious propensity, the argument suffers from the veracious assessment of the Ichthaid.

All in all, the conclusion reached in this memo is not subjective and maybe misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should have to provide the inevitable connection between eating fish, lowering colds, reducing absenteeism, and necessity of taking Ichthaid as substitute for fish. Hence, the arguer must rule out the aforementioned possibility that may weaken the arguer’s conclusion.

使用道具举报

calsunny
UID：2163431

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1155
注册时间: 2005-12-1
精华: 0
帖子: 2

地板

发表于 2005-12-22 07:47:41 |只看该作者

Hunson在我们组不是一般的牛，牛人写好的，再经过牛人的修改，我再来看，真的无异于在鸡蛋里挑石头！
In this argument, the arguer assumes that take (taking)fish oil product, Ichthaid by name , could reduce the frequency of getting cold by (according to) a study of East Meria that eat (eating) a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds, and thus could reduce the absenteeism in schools and workplaces at West Meria. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be plausible, but by a thorough examination of this argument would find(主语？) it fails to (suffers from) some critical fallacies.

First of all, the cold and the absenteeism bear none of associated cause and effect relationship.It is possible that the habitants of West Meria sometimes suffer form bad climate such as Tornado or downfall, so as to be unwilling to take the job. or (Or) that the low salary according to the payout makes the citizens must(去掉？) find another part-time job by utilizing the absent time to make up (taking up extra time, which may lead to absenteeism). Therefore ,the viewpoint that cold induces absenteeism is groundless or (and) unfounded.

Secondly, even the cold is the main reason of absent (being absent) from workplaces or schools, the arguer also makes a false conclusion that, at West Meria, people catch few cold only by reason of taking fish as daily food. Maybe ,the environment of East Meria in a more warm climate is better than that of West Meria ,or the dwellers of East Meria are conditioned to do exercise regularly, or even epidemic prevention had (have) just been done in a full range . Under these circumstances, consuming adequate fish would not effectively bear the function of preventing cold any more.

In a(去掉？) addition, on the assumption for sure that taking fish is in effect, but no evidence could be convinced (convince me that) it would be applicable in West Meria as well. In fact, many factors may baffle the fish-eating consideration, such as scanty of lake or fishpond to yield fish ,and thereby price here is high more (higher) than inhabitants could afford, or in the extreme the West Meria's residents have a disrelish for fish. Therefore, the arguer commits the false belief in establishing a causal relationship between eating fish and lowering colds.

Final but not the last(The last but not the least?), the arguer hurriedly amplify (amplifies)on that the daily use of the Ichthaid as a substitute for fish would prevent colds. Even if taking Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and consequently being capable of lowering absenteeism, it seems that it is perhaps not the only panacea. As we know, the fish contains a lot of nutrition which are (is) all beneficial to people's health, so we can't oversimplify the curative effect of other component and merely aggrandize the ingredients of abstracted fish oil product, the Ichthaid. Moreover, on the account of the fact that the memo appeared in a newsletter by a profitable Health Council with suspicious propensity, the argument suffers from the veracious assessment of the Ichthaid.

All in all, the conclusion reached in this memo is not subjective and maybe misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should have to provide the inevitable connection between eating fish, lowering colds, reducing absenteeism, and necessity of taking Ichthaid as substitute for fish. Hence, the arguer must rule out the aforementioned possibility that may weaken the arguer’s conclusion.

使用道具举报