寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › argument69 求指点附提纲

返回列表

查看: 2894|回复: 6

[a习作temp] argument69 求指点附提纲 [复制链接]

0907020118
UID：3289222

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 15
寄托币: 30
注册时间: 2012-4-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-4-7 16:30:11 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large,
highly diversified company.
“Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as
regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by
different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two
buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost
30 percent more to build. However, that building’s expenses for
maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha’s. In addition, the
energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the
Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus
the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we
recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project,
even though Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs.”
要求
“Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be
answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the
argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the
answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.“

In this argument the author comes to conclusion that they suggest to use Zeta building company rather than Alpha for their new building project. To justify this, the author points out that Zeta’s building's expenses for maintenance last year were half of Alpha's, and the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year in spite of the constructing cost is 30 percent more than the Alpha's. And the author also cites that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. Close scrutiny in this argument reveals that it is unconvincing is several aspects and needs more detailed evidence to support it.

In the first place, the data showed must be reliable before the author reaches the conclusion based upon it. Yet the arguer fails to prove that the data are accurate or representative to reflect the overall situations about these two companies. Even though the data is true, it is from ten years ago which is too long to get any clear information from it.

In addition, the author's reference rests on the poor assumption that during these ten years, the building's expenses of two companies remain unchanged. Perhaps the expenses for maintenance in Alpha first year will ensure that during the future ten years, there is no need to put any money on the building, and perhaps the expense in Alpha is higher than that of Zeta only in the first year. And it is entirely possible that the two companies have changed a lot during ten years, thus the data ten years ago can be insufficient of explain nowadays situations.

The last but not least, whether Zeta building company is truly better than Alpha building company remains to be confirmed. However, the author fails to give more detailed evidence about the company’s scale, technologies and employees to support it. There are main three points should be provided in order to strengthen the recommendation. First, the geological condition may well be different in two areas, and the climate and temperature will both have an impact on the expenses for building and some relevant expenses. Second, the identical floor plans do not mean that the two buildings are the same. Perhaps Alpha’s buildings are higher and more sophisticated in designing. Third, the building’s functions determine the expense of maintenance and energy consumptions. Maybe Alpha’s buildings spend more on the these reasons, thus they cost more on the expenses. The arguer fails to take into account the possibility that the Zeta would charge more on the government when it becomes the only choice for building. Without accounting for these and other possible reasons, any recommendation will be weakened.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically accepted, the author would have to substantiate that the data in the argument is reliable and accurate to reflect the whole problem and that other factors which influence the expenses on building in two areas are considered and eliminated. Moreover, the judgment on the conclusion would be suspended until the author can provide more information about the working regulations or the efficiency of the two companies.
40min

提纲
Argument中出现以下几个主要问题：
1、数据必须权威可靠，十年前的数据了，不足以反映问题
2、作者假设这十年间两个公司的各种情况没有发生改变：有可能A第一年维持费用高，未来几年都不用收费；也有可能仅仅是第一年比Z公司收费高。
3、作者需要给出更多证据来证明Z确实比A好。首先，两个地区的地理条件可能不一样，气温和工作环境都会影响施工费用；再者，相同的地面设计不代表两个楼一样，或许A的要更好设计更全面精确；最后，楼的功能和使用量决定维修费用。很可能A公司的功能强大使用量大，需要的维修费必然会多。

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.09.19

回应
0

使用道具举报

0907020118
UID：3289222

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 15
寄托币: 30
注册时间: 2012-4-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2012-4-7 16:30:52 |只看该作者

这个月就考了，希望好心人能多多点评！

使用道具举报

okqishi
UID：3245371

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 2485
寄托币: 43989
注册时间: 2012-2-5
精华: 5
帖子: 6562

板凳

发表于 2012-4-7 17:15:22 |只看该作者

In this argument the author comes to conclusion that they(they是谁？) suggest to use Zeta building company rather than Alpha for their new building project. To justify this, the author points out that Zeta’s building's expenses for maintenance last year were half of Alpha's, and the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year in spite of the constructing cost is 30 percent more than the Alpha's. And the author also cites that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover. Close scrutiny in this argument reveals that it is unconvincing is several aspects and needs more detailed evidence to support it.

In the first place, the data showed must be reliable before the author reaches the conclusion based upon it. Yet the arguer fails to prove that the data are accurate or representative to reflect the overall situations about these two companies. Even though the data is true, it is from ten years ago which is too long to get any clear information from it.（第一个正文段怎么这么短...）

In addition, the author's reference rests on the poor assumption that during these ten years, the building's expenses of two companies remain unchanged. Perhaps the expenses for maintenance in Alpha first year will ensure that during the future ten years, there is no need to put any money on the building, and perhaps the expense in Alpha is higher than that of Zeta only in the first year. And it is entirely possible that the two companies have changed a lot during ten years, thus the data ten years ago can be insufficient of explain nowadays situations. （个人觉得，第二正文段和第一正文段某种程度上有重复，内容有交叉，可以合为一段）

The last but not least, whether Zeta building company is truly better than Alpha building company remains to be confirmed. However, the author fails to give more detailed evidence about the company’s scale, technologies and employees to support it. There are main three points（three main points） should be provided in order to strengthen the recommendation. First, the geological condition may well be different in two areas, and the climate and temperature will both have an impact on the expenses for building and some relevant expenses. Second, the identical floor plans do not mean that the two buildings are the same. Perhaps Alpha’s buildings are higher and more sophisticated in designing. Third, the building’s functions determine the expense of maintenance and energy consumptions. Maybe Alpha’s buildings spend more on the these reasons, thus they cost more on the expenses. The arguer fails to take into account the possibility that the Zeta would charge more on the government when it becomes the only choice for building. Without accounting for these and other possible reasons, any recommendation will be weakened.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically accepted, the author would have to substantiate that the data in the argument is reliable and accurate to reflect the whole problem and that other factors which influence the expenses on building in two areas are considered and eliminated. Moreover, the judgment on the conclusion would be suspended until the author can provide more information about the working regulations or the efficiency of the two companies.

1.开头段和结尾段模版型太强
2.前两个正文段没有明显的内容界限（也可能是我没有领悟到lz的真谛）
3.个人感觉你这篇最大的问题就是你忽视了instruction；“Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be
answered in order to...” 我通篇都没有找到关于针对argument的questions，lz这种写法感觉上是老G的写法，新G AW一定要有所改变，根据不同的instructions
4.lz的表达能力还是可以的，再接再厉
一家之言，仅供参考

使用道具举报

0907020118
UID：3289222

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 15
寄托币: 30
注册时间: 2012-4-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

地板

发表于 2012-4-8 15:49:10 |只看该作者

非常感谢！
我是训练了几篇之后才注意到instruction的，自己也发现模板性太强，新AW的instruction不一样是不是要用不同的表达方式？那岂不意味着每个人不能有固定的模板来写？
另外我今儿注意了这个问题，重新写了一篇，不知可否得到你的指点撒~~

使用道具举报

okqishi
UID：3245371

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 2485
寄托币: 43989
注册时间: 2012-2-5
精华: 5
帖子: 6562

5楼

发表于 2012-4-8 16:11:10 |只看该作者

4# 0907020118

Argument的instructions有8个，其实只有4个：evidence，assumptions，alternative explanations，questions。
可以每一种instruction准备一个模板
参考帖子https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1272158-1-1.html
有新作文的话就发上来呗

使用道具举报

0907020118
UID：3289222

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 15
寄托币: 30
注册时间: 2012-4-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

6楼

发表于 2012-4-8 16:29:04 |只看该作者

好人一枚！:handshake

使用道具举报

0907020118
UID：3289222

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 15
寄托币: 30
注册时间: 2012-4-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2012-4-8 16:38:06 |只看该作者

The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times.”

“Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three

years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter

took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40

minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town

council already have suggested more road building to address the

problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely

disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to

follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville

implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving

them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since

the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that

commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a

policy like Garville’s shouldn’t work equally well in Waymarsh.”

“Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed

to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or

strengthen the argument.”;

In this argument the author comes to conclusion that traffic in Waymarsh should follow the the nearby city of Garville,
thus their traffic problem will be better solved . To justify this, the author points out that a survey donducted three years ago showed that the driving commuter took much longer than before, and this problem have not been soleved (solved)
well because the town council' suggestion on building more roads cost much and will interupt (interrupt) some residential neighborhoods. And author also cites that the nearby city Garville carry on a new policy last year was good for their own city which implented (implemented)
a policy that rewards people sharing rides to work and gives them coupons for free gas. Close scrutiny in this argument reveals that it is unconvincing is several aspects and need more detailed evidence to support it.

In the first place, the survey must be showed to be reliable before the author reached the conclusion based on it. However the author fails to give any clear information about whether the responses are accurate or the respondents are statistically significant in number. Also, the survey which conducted three year ago is insufficient enough to reflect the overall current issues.

In addition, the arguer unfairly claims that in Garville, the lower pollution level and shorter commuting times is the result of the policy rewarding people who share rides to work and giving the coupons for free gas, rather than any other phenomenon. It is emperative (imperative)
for the author to give more evidence to show that other factors have been considered and eliminated such as the Garville's population, the driving condition, the distance between the working and doing and the weather condition and so on.

Finally, even assuming that the improvement is attributed to the policy carried by Garville, the author commits another analogy in assuming by the same means Waymarsh city will achieve the same result as Garville does. The author must consider possible differences between two cities which might help to bring about different results if wants this conclusion to be more evident. Do two cities have the same road condition or the same population for driving? What if the industries are much more in Waymarsh than that of Garville, which continue to cause serious pollution to the city? To strengthen the argument, the author should answer these questions comprehensively.

In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would have to substantiate that the states in the survey is reliable and representative or that the survey result remains unchanged during one year. There still suspend the judgment until the author can provide more information about the two cities in different aspects so that by following the method Garville carried, Waymarsh city will achieve the same success as Garville does.

红色的字忽略吧~

使用道具举报