寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › 【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】之 "君子之辩 ...

【ARGUMENT--bring order out of chaos】之 "君子之辩" [复制链接]

nothingroom UID：2447906 nothingroom 当前离线最后登录 2023-8-5 在线时间 531 小时寄托币 5631 声望 54 注册时间 2008-1-16 阅读权限 5 帖子 44 精华 1 积分 226 UID 2447906 禁止发言声望 54 寄托币 5631 注册时间 2008-1-16 精华 1 帖子 44 关注TA 加好友标签发消息	16楼发表于 2009-6-18 14:25:50 \|只看该作者提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽
	签名被屏蔽
	使用道具举报

abi-gail
UID：2624616

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: -5
寄托币: 392
注册时间: 2009-4-2
精华: 0
帖子: 4

17楼

发表于 2009-6-25 11:55:15 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 abi-gail 于 2009-6-25 11:56 编辑

PASSAGE ONE:
.
Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a species’s intelligence. All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it. Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.
逻辑很差劲，见笑~ 看到最后才想起来那个grey matter是脑灰质…… 囧
P1
观点---老观点Domestication impeded species’ intelligence. 暗示新观点 good in some cases
解释老观点---owners think for animals>>>dumb down
Dogs, however, look like an exception to this rule. Some, such as herding sheepdogs, have been bred for tasks that seem to involve a lot of intelligence. More intriguingly, an experiment carried out in 2004 by Brian Hare, then at Harvard and now of Duke University in North Carolina, suggested that natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence, too, by allowing them to understand human behaviour in a way that their ancestors, wolves, cannot. The latest study of the matter, however, suggests that is not the case after all, and that wolves, not dogs, are the clever ones.

P2
例外---dogs exception (sheepdogs bred for tasks>>> intelligence)
实验1---dog>wolf >>>  (now>ancestor)
实验2---wolf>dog>>> (now>\ancestor)

Dr Hare’s experiments involved showing his animals two upside-down cups, one of which covered food. A human would then gesture in some way at the cup covering the food. In theory, if the animal being tested was properly interpreting the gestures, it should have been lured to the object that the experimenter was indicating. And that is what Dr Hare found. Dogs selected the cup hiding the food far more than half the time, whereas the wolves he used for comparison got it right no more frequently than chance.

P3
描述实验1--- human gesture>>>lure>>>pick cup（animal num. unknown）
猜想---(more intelligent)>>> properly interpreting gestures>>>pick right
结果---dog with human>wolf without human
（结论---dog>wolf）

That led him to conclude that domestic dogs have evolved an ability to understand what their masters are up to by living among people for so long. Monique Udell of the University of Florida, however, begs to differ. She observed that Dr Hare’s wolves, though captive, had not been raised among humans, and wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations. Her team therefore worked with a mixture of pet dogs, dogs from animal shelters that had had minimal interaction with people, and wolves raised by humans. They exposed their animals to an experiment similar to Dr Hare’s and came up with strikingly different results.
P4
分析结论---evolve ability by living among people
实验2---猜想：Learning rather than evolution
   Sample: dogs with human
            Dogs without human
            Wolves with human
   Procedure: akin to 实验1

As they report in Animal Behaviour, the wolves outperformed both shelter dogs and pets. Indeed, six of the eight wolves followed human gestures perfectly in more than eight out of ten trials. Only three of eight pets were as successful as that and, as with Dr Hare’s wolves, none of the shelter dogs performed better than chance. Far from being dumb, then, wolves are smarter than dogs. You just have to bring 'em up proper.
P5
实验2
结果--- wolves with human(6/8 * 8/10=3/5 )>dogs with human(3/8 * 8/10=3/10) > dogs without human我这样算有没错啊~~~囧
结论--- wolf>dog
   >>>>human bring up important>>>>

提纲：
1.
owners think for animals ? dumb down (no change/smarter)
2.
expri.1 More intelligent=properly interpreting gestures? X

Wrong comparison: +dogs without human +wolf with human

Evolve ability by living with human？
dogs ancestor wolf
?

dogs without human

3.Experi.2 limited subjects not representative

Genuine Smart wolf dumb dogs = = 强词夺理

+ wolf without human to improve the importance of human bring up

Procedure: good comparison with expri.1 but fail to certify the conclusion

Improvement: only gesture…(mentioned above)
4.
not representative

two kinds of animals num.;
unique case?
5. in sum

燃烧亿万年的光总有一天传达到要到达的地方

使用道具举报

lucarl
UID：2616426

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 30
寄托币: 1452
注册时间: 2009-3-15
精华: 0
帖子: 4

18楼

发表于 2009-6-27 10:03:47 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 lucarl 于 2009-6-27 10:40 编辑

第一篇：
研究驯养是否对智力有影响

实验中有两个变量：

Domesticated vs. wild
Dogs vs. wolves

接受试验动物应该有四种：
1、domesticated dogs
2、dogs from animal shelter
3、domesticated wolves
4、wild wolves

H用的有：
1、domesticated dogs
2、wild wolves

MU用的有：
1、pet dogs
2、dogs from animal shelters
3、human-raised wolves

很明显H的试验考虑角度就不够全面。用domesticated dogs 和 wild wolves去对比，说明什么？domestication强于wild？还是dogs比wolves聪明？两个variable是要分seperate来的，也就是要控制其中一个变量，对比另一个才有用处。

正确的4个对照组应该是在domesticated dogs vs. dogs from animal shelters，以及 domesticated wolves vs. wild wolves；还有dogs vs. wolves (either both domestication or non-human-raised)

MU的实验少了wild wolves.得出结论：domesticated wolves>domesticated dogs> shelter dogs.
所以，natural selection dumb animals down(because wolves are more clever), and domestication improve intelligence应该是正确的
也就是说，可以得出这么一个结论：
这边是intelligence* domesticated wolves>domesticated dogs> wild wolves> shelter dogs *这边是dumb
(后面红色的这两个是有可能，因为实际上MU并没做这个对比).

但是，说到natural selection 和 domestication(也就是deliberate selection by human)的问题就晕了。dogs肯定是先从wolves进化出来，然后才被人们给domesticated了，总不能人类直接domesticate出的dogs吧。那么，dogs的进化过程就有both naturally and by human了。那么究竟natural selection和domestication那个是造成dogs 比 wolves笨的罪魁祸首呢？从我上面猜想的结论：wild wolves > shelter dogs能够得出，也就是natural selection是原因，因为shelter dogs 可以视为是 natural selected wolves。但是这个对照，即使是MU，也没有做，所以第一段中最后一句：Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.仍然是没有被验证的。

总结一下：
能说明wolves 比 dogs聪明的对照：domesticated wolves>domesticated dogs。如果wild wolves> shelter dogs 能成立就更好了。这样也就说明了natural selection numbs animals down.

至于能不能说明domestication improve animals' intelligence，表面上来看，domesticated wolves>domesticated dogs> wild wolves这个结论能够说明问题了。但实际上，还需要对intelligence定义一下，不能单看”领会主人意图找食物“这一件事情。比如“生存技巧”就很能说明问题，wolves会用计谋是大家都知道的，那么狗呢？还需要其他实验来验证。

p.s. 自己写的时候完全没有想这么深，写完看了全文，领会了草版的意图，然后看了米饭袜子和尾羽两位同学的分析，才有这么多想法，在此感谢一下二位。

PASSAGE THREE:
The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that makes breakfast cereals.
.
In a recent study, subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. By fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, we can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers.

审题：
In a recent study, subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. 调查结果

By fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, we can increase sales：

1、The survey

2、appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health.

This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers.结论

逻辑图：

Survey àsoybeans lower cholesterol \
àà increase profits &improve health
Consumers concerned about health /

红色箭头为主要攻击点。

看完了全文再回来看自己的攻击点。
说实话，survey到soybeans lower cholesterol level之间的红色箭头，我攻击时准备说“subjects不代表所有人”“即使代表所有人，依然可能这些人胆固醇低是有其他原因的”“吃与不吃酱油的人的信息没有被给出”之类的话的。

后面的红箭头，我想攻击“关心健康不一定只关心胆固醇，还有其他很多指标，如果这个Wheat-O在其他方面都很弱，还是不行的”

写了这么几个字，脑子又乱了，不知道这么攻击是不是不对了。。。请大家帮忙指教一下

使用道具举报

lucarl
UID：2616426

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 30
寄托币: 1452
注册时间: 2009-3-15
精华: 0
帖子: 4

19楼

发表于 2009-6-27 10:44:42 |只看该作者

另外“All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it.”这句话的上下文作用和意思仍然不太理解啊~intelligence和grey matter有什么关系吗？

to 尾羽同学：
高中生物貌似讲过，大脑中灰质和白质的含量决定智力，白质多比较笨一点。

这句的作用，我想作者是想引起人的兴趣，“要想灰质多可不容易啊，什么都有人替你想到了，你还要它做什么”这句话，怎么也比“总让别人替你思考，你的智力也会下降”来的幽默一些。
没想到却引起了你的疑惑~

使用道具举报

cqyanbo
UID：2515250

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 332
注册时间: 2008-7-13
精华: 0
帖子: 0

20楼

发表于 2009-6-29 23:02:49 |只看该作者

Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a species’s intelligence. All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it. Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.
1.
提出驯化并不像我们想象的那样对生物的智力有好处。第一句话应该是本文的中心句，指出作者反对驯化可以提高动物智力这个观点。自然选择可能会使驯化动物变得简单。

Dogs, however, look like an exception to this rule. Some, such as herding sheepdogs, have been bred for tasks that seem to involve a lot of intelligence. More intriguingly, an experiment carried out in 2004 by Brian Hare, then at Harvard and now of Duke University in North Carolina, suggested that natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence, too, by allowing them to understand human behavior in a way that their ancestors, wolves, cannot. The latest study of the matter, however, suggests that is not the case after all, and that wolves, not dogs, are the clever ones.
2．该段该出了本文的一个整体架构。第一句话可以看出，作者牧羊犬的例子再次对人类驯化可以使动物智力提高的观点提出了质疑。通过对最后的两句话分析发现，这是两个实验，目的都是分析狼和狗哪一个更聪明，但是两个实验给出了相反的结果。
这段有三句话，第一句话有点承上启下的意思。第二句通过more intriguingly引出Brian Hare的实验，容易看出作者并不支持这个实验的结果。而第三句引出的实验才是作者认可的。

Dr Hare’s experiments involved showing his animals two upside-down cups, one of which covered food. A human would then gesture in some way at the cup covering the food. In theory, if the animal being tested was properly interpreting the gestures, it should have been lured to the object that the experimenter was indicating. And that is what Dr Hare found. Dogs selected the cup hiding the food far more than half the time, whereas the wolves he used for comparison got it right no more frequently than chance.
3.
第三段还是详细解释H的实验过程以及实验结果。指出如果动物能正确完成实验，都应该是人类干预的结果。同时还指出狗的成功次数比较多，也就是间接指出狗比狼聪明。

That led him to conclude that domestic dogs have evolved an ability to understand what their masters are up to by living among people for so long. Monique Udell of the University of Florida, however, begs to differ. She observed that Dr Hare’s wolves, though captive, had not been raised among humans, and wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations. Her team therefore worked with a mixture of pet dogs, dogs from animal shelters that had had minimal interaction with people, and wolves raised by humans. They exposed their animals to an experiment similar to Dr Hare’s and came up with strikingly different results.
4.
第一句话再次给出了H的最终的结论：狗因为长时间跟人类接触，已经有了一种理解主人行动的能力。第二觉通过however点名一个转折点，后面跟了一个得出跟H完全对立的结论的实验。这里给出了两个实验使用的样本的对比：
H: wild wolves —— domestic dogs

M：dogs from animal shelters —— wolves raised by humans
两个实验的取样也是对立的，但是这两个取样同样也是片面的。都只是研究了样本的一种可能性就草率的下了结论。

As they report in
Animal Behaviour, the wolves outperformed both shelter dogs and pets. Indeed, six of the eight wolves followed human gestures perfectly in more than eight out of ten trials. Only three of eight pets were as successful as that and, as with Dr Hare’s wolves, none of the shelter dogs performed better than chance. Far from being dumb, then, wolves are smarter than dogs. You just have to bring 'em up proper
5. 给出了M的最终报告，并再次强调了作者对其结论的支持。

提纲：
1.
提出作者观点：驯化不能使动物智力提高。
2.
给出本文将使用的两个实验的结果。目的是研究哪个物种更聪明。
3.
介绍H的实验过程及结果。
4.
介绍M的实验及结果。

破题：
1.
两个实验的取样是否完整，能否代表所有的取样可能性？
2.
就算取样正确，实验的方式是否能证明狗和狼哪种更聪明？
3.
另外，作者没有介绍实验的外界环境对试验样本的影响。比如：有可能狗或狼其中一种对实验使用的杯子的颜色更加敏感，或者对食物的气味更加敏感。这都有可能影响到实验结果的准确性。

使用道具举报

tracywlz
UID：2522388

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 1790
寄托币: 26938
注册时间: 2008-7-26
精华: 4
帖子: 1425

21楼

发表于 2009-7-1 15:39:28 |只看该作者

P1
Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a species’s intelligence（作者观点1）. All that grey matter is expensive to grow（前提1）, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it.（结论1） Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.（结论1的具体表现）

Dogs, however, look like an exception to this rule. Some, such as herding sheepdogs, have been bred for tasks that seem to involve a lot of intelligence. More intriguingly, an experiment carried out in 2004 by Brian Hare, then at Harvard and now of Duke University in North Carolina, suggested that natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence, too, by allowing them to understand human behaviour in a way that their ancestors, wolves, cannot（这里有个隐形假设，wolves和dogs的所有区别是由自然选择造成的，而这可有对人类表现的理解来反映）. The latest study of the matter, however, suggests that is not the case after all, and that wolves, not dogs, are the clever ones.
.
Dr Hare’s experiments involved showing his animals two upside-down cups, one of which covered food. A human would then gesture in some way at the cup covering the food. In theory, if the animal being tested was properly interpreting the gestures, it should have been lured to the object that the experimenter was indicating. And that is what Dr Hare found. Dogs selected the cup hiding the food far more than half the time, whereas the wolves he used for comparison got it right no more frequently than chance. （Dr Hare的逻辑，通过人类指引，实验中狗找到有食物的杯子的速度快于狼。所以说自然选择使动物更加聪明。这里有两个假设。1，理解人的行为然后实现的快慢是智力高低的一种表现。2.前面提到的，狗和狼在此实验的区别是自然选择的结果）
.
That led him to conclude that domestic dogs have evolved an ability to understand what their masters are up to by living among people for so long（作者关于Dr. H的实验的结论）. Monique Udell of the University of Florida, however, begs to differ. She observed that Dr Hare’s wolves, though captive, had not been raised among humans, and wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations(MU的质疑，因为狼没有在人类中喂养，而狗有，所以这种差异也许是学习而不是自然选择造成的。其实这里，MU就是在反驳狗和狼在此实验的区别是自然选择的结果). Her team therefore worked with a mixture of pet dogs, dogs from animal shelters that had had minimal interaction with people, and wolves raised by humans.
（这里其实有作对照实验的一个致命错误，2个变量。） They exposed their animals to an experiment similar to Dr Hare’s and came up with strikingly different results.（这个结果因此也就不具有可信性）

As they（这里应该是2个实验的总和） report in Animal Behaviour, the wolves outperformed both shelter dogs and pets. Indeed, six of the eight wolves followed human gestures perfectly in more than eight out of ten trials. Only three of eight pets（这里应该是指的是MU的pet dogs） were as successful as that and, as with Dr Hare’s wolves, none of the shelter dogs performed better than chance. Far from being dumb, then, wolves are smarter than dogs（作者本人最终结论）. You just have to bring 'em up proper.（这里很明显，作者把2个实验综合了看。然后得出狼比狗聪明，但注意。这是2个分别将狼与pet dogs和shelter dogs比较的实验。狗不止这2种，还有野生狗什么呢？然后，这两个实验是否具有可加和性，我也有些怀疑）

那些无法击垮我的东西，只会使我更加强大.

使用道具举报

eric_scut
UID：2304889

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 233
注册时间: 2007-2-17
精华: 0
帖子: 4

22楼

发表于 2009-7-8 22:38:55 |只看该作者

看完3篇文章后写出的提纲

P1
原结论：驯养对物种的智力是不好的。
驳斥点：
First of all, the author of the above passage states as a rule that domestication dumbs animals down, merely based on the assumption of brain's deterioration without use. This is not an adequate reasoning. An animal being domestic does not mean that it does not use its brain any more.

Secondly, whether dogs or wolves, either domestic or not, are more clever in following the human's gesture has little relation to indicate the species's intelligence. The action of the dogs or wolves maybe just a reflex action to the human's gesture. So does in the example of the herding sheepdogs.

P2
原结论：英国的学生越来越愚蠢。
驳斥点：
1. Michael Shayer的研究对象是推理能力(reasoning abilities)，这只是人的一个方面的能力，不能全面衡量学生聪明或愚蠢。所以不能证明作者的观点。
2. Michael Shayer做的30年前后的对比实验，样本来源没有说明，是否可靠，是否具有代表性；样本数量也没有说明。所以结果不可靠。
原文在给出Michael Shayer的研究后进一步讨论了导致学生变蠢的原因，在这一论证过程中也发现了一些错误(以下3、4点)，但这一讨论并不是原文的论证中心，所以不作为驳斥的重点。
3. 假设出门，工具和机械玩具对学生的认知能力有帮助，但没有给出任何证明，仅仅是一猜测。
4. 平均水平提高，低级学生减少这一实验结果，不一定是由于老师注重教育差等生导致的。

P3
原结论：在公司的Wheat-O谷类食品中添加大豆蛋白，可以增加利润，同时有益顾客健康。
驳斥点：
1. 大豆的研究是否有问题，是否需要驳斥？这一点其实我还不确定，希望论坛其他人解答。
2. 大豆好不意味着大豆蛋白好，可能是其它成分起作用。
3. 在Wheat-O中添加大豆蛋白，不一定能吸引更多的消费者。
4. 这一做法不一定会增加公司利润，要考虑成本问题。
5. 不一定有益于顾客的健康，大豆蛋白和Wheat-O中其它成分的复合可能会有副作用，需要进一步研究。

使用道具举报

eric_scut
UID：2304889

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 233
注册时间: 2007-2-17
精华: 0
帖子: 4

23楼

发表于 2009-7-9 00:11:31 |只看该作者

晕，，，分析了几个小时，硬是找出自以为的逻辑错误，，还感觉良好的。。。结果说。。。argue还真毒害人，搞得看到别人的文章都说是错的

使用道具举报

emily_feifei
UID：2626151

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 48
寄托币: 2409
注册时间: 2009-4-6
精华: 0
帖子: 48

24楼

发表于 2009-8-11 22:28:01 |只看该作者

下周考，也写了好多篇了，说到survey问题自己也觉得每篇似乎都要讲，是否有必要。看看到你的文章很有感触，谢谢了！
另外数字问题，个人认为太阳黑子那篇是不能忽略的，作者给了明显的年份。呵呵~

SOC绝对是个减肥给力的好去处~

使用道具举报

lghscu
UID：2552043

超级会员

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 401
寄托币: 5013
注册时间: 2008-9-29
精华: 3
帖子: 298

25楼

发表于 2009-8-30 22:59:13 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 lghscu 于 2009-8-30 23:28 编辑

PASSAGE ONE:
.总观点：Natural selection使得animals变笨
论证：一组实验数据表明wolves比dogs更聪明
攻击：1 Natural selection不是domestication，偷换概念

2 dogs和wolves不代表所有的animals 以偏概全

3 做实验的dogs and wolves是否具有代表性

观点1：Natural selection会让domestic animals退化
Domestication is not normally reckoned good for a species’s intelligence. All that grey matter is expensive to grow, so if you have an owner to do your thinking for you, then you do not need so much of it. Natural selection (not to mention deliberate selection by people) might therefore be expected to dumb domestic animals down.

观点2：狗是例外，即狗经过natural selection会进化得clever
论据： experiment证实狗理解人的行为ànatural selection使得狗intelligence得到提高
狗的祖先wolves不能
又有实验证实wolves比dogs聪明
Dogs, however, look like an exception to this rule. Some, such as herding sheepdogs, have been bred for tasks that seem to involve a lot of intelligence. More intriguingly有趣地, an experiment carried out in 2004 by Brian Hare, then at Harvard and now of Duke University in North Carolina, suggested that natural selection in the context of domestication had boosted dogs’ intelligence, too, by allowing them to understand human behaviour in a way that their ancestors, wolves, cannot. The latest study of the matter, however, suggests that is not the case after all, and that wolves, not dogs, are the clever ones.
.
Dr Hare’s experiments involved showing his animals two upside-down cups, one of which covered food. A human would then gesture(v.作手势) in some way at the cup covering the food. In theory, if the animal being tested was properly interpreting the gestures, it should have been lured to the object that the experimenter was indicating. And that is what Dr Hare found. Dogs selected the cup hiding the food far more than half the time, whereas the wolves he used for comparison got it right no more frequently than chance.

.观点3：domestic dogs与人居住一段时间后具有理解人行为的能力
宠物狗，野狗和养的wolves实验中wolves更聪明
That led him to conclude that domestic dogs have evolved an ability to understand what their masters are up to by living among people for so long. Monique Udell of the University of Florida, however, begs to differ. She observed that Dr Hare’s wolves, though captive, had not been raised among humans, and wondered whether learning rather than evolution explained his observations. Her team therefore worked with a mixture of pet dogs, dogs from animal shelters that had had minimal interaction with people, and wolves raised by humans. They exposed their animals to an experiment similar to Dr Hare’s and came up with strikingly different results.
As they report in Animal Behaviour, the wolves outperformed both shelter dogs and pets. Indeed, six of the eight wolves followed human gestures perfectly in more than eight out of ten trials. Only three of eight pets were as successful as that and, as with Dr Hare’s wolves, none of the shelter dogs performed better than chance. Far from being dumb, then, wolves are smarter than dogs. You just have to bring 'em up proper.

PASSAGE TWO:
.论点：the country’s children appear to be becoming dumber.
论据：相隔30年的学生在同一测试中现在表现不如以前