【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT161 B组回收站

weaselUID: 2739489

提交时间为5月6日13点前

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

改weasel

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

空格是贴上来的时候它自己没的..不知楼上怎么觉得我写作功底深的...
非常惭愧，我每写一篇文章都要花血本的时间啊....
还有额..
有个不情之请...
希望能多批批..我作文还是有很多问题的，特别是表达太一般...正在努力积累中....

钱钱去米国UID: 2761990

不好意思，这两天一直在搞报名的事情，所以晚了
改sola


Given the first study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville with the responses that most of the respondents preferred literary classics as reading materials and a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers indicated that it was mystery novels that were most frequently checked out of the public libraries,the speaker concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. On the surface, then, the conclusion mentioned above may appear to be reasonable. However, a further speculation of all the reasoning and conclusion suggests this argument stands on several questionable grounds.

On the first point, the speaker does not take the shared part of the superficially entirely different two, literaryclassics and mystery novels, into account. One composition might hardly beclassified into one genre as the abundance in its contents and inner sights ofthe world. As a result, it could not be denied that there indeed exists someclassic mystery literary. The Divine Comedy is an epic poem written by DanteAlighieri which describes Dante’s travels through Hell, Purgatory, and Heavenand allegorically represents the soul's journey to God. The Iliad, set in theTrojan War, which mentions or alludes to many of the Greek legends about thesiege is among the oldest extant work of Western literature. Aren’t they partof mystery fictions and also consisting the classics literary? Moreover, definitions of mystery fictions and classics literary vary differently among readers with diverse characters and backgrounds. Hence, the conclusion made by the speakeris unwarranted.
上面这段例子真的很彪悍，有层次啊，不过，那个哈，貌似mystery novel 是侦探小说的意思，mystery fictions是神密小说，关键词的意思千万不要弄错了，不然就杯具鸟~~~
On the second point, there is no mention about how long the interim period is. The speaker improperly assumes that the follow-up study was conducted right afterthe first investigation. Whether the interim period is long or not matters a lot. Habits change as the time passes by. Reading habits are no exception. Whatif the citizens of Leeville were wearied of literary classics as a result of thereplacement of prevailing high-speedcommunication methods like television and Internet where mystery novels may bemore popular than literary classics, or mystery novels are more likely torelease them from high pressure from their modern lives which leaves themsmothered than literary classics.

On the third point, there is no presentationabout how many sorts of books and how many in each sort of the public librariesin Leeville. It is an important factor when considering the frequency in thechecked-out books. It is possible that the libraries content much fewer, if any,classics literary than the mystery novels. As a result, there is no wonder thatthe checking-out frequency of mystery novels is much higher than the classicsliterary.

Besides, in the conclusion of thisargument, the speaker uses the word ”misrepresented” reflecting that the speakerdoes not consider the subjective thoughts of respondents in the first study. Didthe respondents really prefer literary classics or it is only their mentaldesire that pretending to be more literary and cultivated? It is understandablefor all people to have a desire for being more cultivated on surface thanindeed. Also, it is common to see one's deeds are not always in accordance with one's words. It should not be blamed on Leeville citizens, while, the speaker did not provide a proper research method.

On balance, the conclusion of this argumentis unwarranted as the analysis above. In order to lead support to itsconclusion, the speaker could take the following advices: 1) make a definite boundarybetween classics literary and the mystery novels, and exclude the overlapped part from investigation list; 2) more investigations should be conducted on the collection of books in Leeville's public libraries; 3) the first study could beconducted without recording the names of the respondents, that could partly decrease respondents' liability of lying.


基本上米有啥语法错误，sola的写作功底很深啊，不过有时会忘记空格，让人看起有点纠结，整个argument的逻辑基本没有什么问题。

weaselUID: 2739489

掉色了，石头看这个附件

weaselUID: 2739489

In this argument, the arguer concludes thatLeeville citizens preferred to read mystery novel instead of literary classics.To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that mostrespondents of a survey said they are fond of literary classics while the sameresearchers found that these citizens most frequently borrowed mystery novel.Carefully examining the conclusion, we may find that the evidence leads littlesupport to the conclusion.

In the first place, the survey by the University of Leevillelacks credibility. Neither do we know how many people are engaged in thesurvey, nor do we know whether they are representatives of all the citizens inLeeville. It is entirely possible that only a fewpeople responded the survey, and in same way, maybe a large proportionof the respondents are students of the（some） University. Thesestudents might major in literary classics or other literary –related subjects.Thus they would surely（这里也不能说这么肯定，都是literary专业也未必都喜欢，这个例子用得很nice，还是加个限定好一点，说得绝对就禁不起推敲了） respond that they prefer literary classics. （这中间可以插一点，比如你前面的那个only a few。。。可以补到这里，虽然都是反驳调查不具备代表性，分开说就显得有层次一点，前面是怀疑respondents的选择可能片面，后面怀疑样本容量的太少不足以代表全部）And we never know what about theother Leeville citizens’ preferences. Without the information of therespondents, we can hardly generalize any credible conclusion.


In the second place, we cannot simply generalize that most Leeville citizenschoose mystery novels as their reading material only by the fact that mysterybooks are most frequently borrowed in public libraries. Because we do not knowhow many Leeville citizens borrow books as their reading material. If only afew people have the habits of borrowing books instead of buying them, theevidence cannot support the indication that Leeville citizens like mysterynovels. 这段有点论证的不太充分了，无论是字数还是内容上都看得出来，你还可以说是图书馆管理的原因等导致古典类的图书不能外借，还可以说是书本身的原因。还有读电子书等等之类。。这里如果没有思路，可以参考一下别人的提纲，以方便你展开

Even if the majority of Leeville citizens borrow books for reading, it does notnecessarily mean that they read more mystery novels than literary classics. Asit is known to all that most people would read a novel only once, which meansafter finishing reading, he will hardly read it once again. Therefore, it isreasonable that they immediately return the novel to the library and borrowanother one. In contrast, people often read literary classics for many timesbecause one can not get the idea or the spirit of them by reading only once. Ifpeople read them over and over again, they would surely not return them. As aresult, though the frequency of borrowing mystery novels is high, it does notindicate most people prefer mystery novels thanliterary classics. Thirdly（怎么没有secondly?还有前面的叙述很好，但是略显长了，建议压缩一点，把下面这个possibility加长）, it is alsopossible that only a few citizens are particularly fond of mystery novels andthey usually have much free time. So they borrowing and returning contribute tothe high frequency of mystery novels.

In conclusion, the argument suffered from several logical flaws because theresults of the survey and the succeeding research hardly lead to theconclusion. To substantiate the final statement, the arguer should providesmore information about the respondents of the first survey and it is better tooffer more evidences besides the frequency of books borrowed in the publiclibrary.

第一次改你的，再次赞你表达流畅，读起来很畅快，没有障碍，可见基础很不错，但是用词稍显单调和简单一些，建议在这方面下下功夫，不必刻意追求，做到丰富多变即可，这也是个人需要努力的方面，这里提出不是说教而是建议

逻辑错误找的没有问题，但是论证这方面我也说不上来，这几周argument我练的虽然多，但是一直没有时间停下来认真思考一下，自己论证也仅是力求清晰连贯，唯一有所感悟的就是我上面提到的分层次论证，这个你可以参考argument官方范文里关于高速公路那一篇的倒数第二段（也可能是倒数第三段）

weaselUID: 2739489

8# ROse_Mary

终于回归了你，加油补作业哈，这篇你先自改
还有，注意一下发上来的格式，段与段空一行，来不及就把word版贴上

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

In this argument, the author concluded that the respondents in the study of reading habits in Leeville had misrepresented their reading habits. In support of this conclusion he or she pointed out the argument that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries was the mystery novel. This conclusion seems reasonable at first sight, but we can find several false that undermine the author's argument when we think about it further.
To begin with, the validity of the survey is doubtful. Lacking information about the number of the citizens studied and the number of the respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if 500 citizens were surveyed but only 5 responded, thus the 5 people lacked the representativeness and the conclusion would be highly suspect.
Even if the study was well conducted, the author failed to establish a causal relationship between the fact that the mystery novel was the kind of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville and the claim that the respondents were lying in the first study. And as we all know, if people prefer literary classics as reading material, they will not necessarily choose to go to the public libraries, but get reading through other methods. Perhaps, for example, because of being fond of the literary classics, people tend to go to the book store to buy some as to read more times or borrow the books from friends. On the other hand, since the mystery books are full of more fun than the literary classics and most people are used to read the novel once, it is more possible that the citizens borrow the mystery novel from the public libraries other than buy them. From the analogy below, it is obvious that the author’s conclusion is full of flaws.
In summary, before coming to the conclusion, the author is supposed to take more conditions on the reading habits of the citizens in Leeville into consideration.
好晚了~检讨~我还差好多篇~加油~。

youngstoneUID: 2670818

改钱钱的~~
In this argument the author compare these tow(two) different Completions incorrectly,hasty drawing the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented reading habits of Leeville citizens.However, such a conclusion has some obvious flaws, and I will explain it in fellowing (following)aspects.

First of all ,the author fails to offer any significant evidences which can prove that reading habits of Leeville citizens is mystery novel.(这表达不对呀）In the second study there is(are) no exact datas can(这个can去掉） concluding that the respondents can be (介词短语前面有系动词啊）on behalf of all Leeville citizens.what’s more the author does not give any information about how many people they chose in the second study as respondents,and whether this number is big encought （enough)when contrast (这里是compare吧，和人口为什么要对比啊）with the population of Leeville.If the anwerse is no,the accuracy of this study can be suspected.

Secondly,the interval between these tow studys is unknown.If they have separated for a long time,the comparability dose not exist.As reading habits of Leeville citizens will change from time to time,which is awfully understandable.For instance ,one may love King Lear at first and may turns to be in favor of Death on the Nile at latter Besides,as time past,economic level will also develop and Leeville citizens may able to pay much more money on reading.Thus, people may prefer to buy books rather than to（to 去掉prefer to do rather than do) borrow it from the liberary when they become rich. They may buy these literary classics so that they do not need to borrow them from liberary.Another reason may be that, because Leeville citizens love literary classics ,they may buy these as favorites, while borrow mystery novel as pastime.

Thirdiy,identity of the respondents are unknown.And we don’t grasp that whether the identities of the respondents in these tow study are the same.If not,these tow groups of respondents may own different reading habits.Thus,one group would like literary classics and the other prefer mystery novel.At the same time, they may have different resding function,one group maybe always buying books,another may usually borrow books from liberary.
Finally,the a（没有） correlation between citizens reading habits and the mystery novel was the most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville does not necessary infer a causal relationshop.we do not know whether the public libraries in Leeville has literary classics,which people of the Leevile may best want to borrow.Neither can we known the precise number of mystery novels in Leevile liberary.If the number is too hurge comparing with the other books,the accuracy of second study can not be sure.

To sum up, this argument put two studys ,which is not comparable,together drawning loosely conclusion.The author ignore differences between these two studys seeming similar,but comparablity hardly can be prove in some aspects such as,how much time pasted between two studys,the possibility of different papulation patrons in two studys and so forth.

哇~~一看就是限时并且在软件里写的，虽然有些拼写错误，但是限时写的好厉害啊~~

weaselUID: 2739489

今天很迟了





Aftercollecting checking records from local libraries, as shows that residents inLeeville prefer borrowing mastery novels, the author remarked that respondentsof the early study had misrepresented their habits in favor of literaryclassics. Wrestling with the whole statement presented, one would set outseveral dubious points.

Primarily, the vague understanding overdefinition of literary classics resulted in the author’s incorrect judgment. Itis no surprise that some reading materials, such as Greek Mysterious story,Homer epics- containing Odyssey and Iliad and other similar ones, can beclassified to both literary classic and mastery novel. There’s a circumstance thatthe meanings some part of respondents define as literary classics, are inreality also mastery novels in their minds. If such a condition appears in popular,the follow-up study’s consequence is evident. However, from the processprovided in the argument, we do not see the author considering this potentialdisputed issue.

Next, even if no confusion bout thedefinition of two kinds of reading materials exists, the study from libraries isnot sufficient to prove citizens in Leeville have habits of reading mastery novels rather than literaryclassics. In view of readers’ usual practice, it is entirely possible that mostof literary classic fans prefer buying books as precious collections as toenjoy their lasting values at home, instead of borrowing from libraries onlyfor short time. Again, the conditions of literary classics in these librariesalso should be taken into consideration. If the volume is so limited that onlya few people can borrow them or these classics are too old-aged to be damagedanymore, based on the purpose of making more people benefit from these booksand protecting classics, libraries stop to lend some parts of them. As aresult, less and less these kinds of reading materials can be checked out.

Finally, when considering value of thestudy, one must suspect whether people are actually much fonder of masterynovels, even though more mastery novels than classics are borrowed in the sametime with the investigation. It is possible that this condition is attributedto a popular tendency. For example, an attracting movie about mastery stories cantotally raise a storm that people are crazy to focus on relevant materials:music, images, books and so forth. Therefore, for a short time, large majorityof peoples pour into libraries to capture mastery books. However, as a commonsense, this kind of tend can not last for long. So, how could the author sayrespondents hadmisrepresented their reading habits?

All in all, after the analysis, theargument definitely lacks enough evidence to support its conclusion. Therefore,to make it more credible, more efforts should be exerted. Otherwise, theargument will make a misleading itself.

lvruochenUID: 2792806

路过，学习，加油

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

Given the first study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville with the responses that most of the respondents preferred literary classics as reading materials and a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers indicated that it was mystery novels that were most frequently checked out of the public libraries,the speaker concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. On the surface, then, the conclusion mentioned above may appear to be reasonable. However, a further speculation of all the reasoning and conclusion suggests this argument stands on several questionable grounds.

On the first point, the speaker does nottake the shared part of the superficially entirely different two, literaryclassics and mystery novels, into account. One composition might hardly beclassified into one genre as the abundance in its contents and inner sights ofthe world. As a result, it could not be denied that there indeed exists someclassic mystery literary. The Divine Comedy is an epic poem written by DanteAlighieri which describes Dante’s travels through Hell, Purgatory, and Heavenand allegorically represents the soul's journey to God. The Iliad, set in theTrojan War, which mentions or alludes to many of the Greek legends about thesiege is among the oldest extant work of Western literature. Aren’t they partof mystery fictions and also consisting the classics literary? Moreover, definitionsof mystery fictions and classics literary vary differently among readers with diverse characters and backgrounds. Hence, the conclusion made by the speakeris unwarranted.

On the second point, there is no mentionabout how long the interim period is. Thespeaker improperly assumes that the follow-up study was conducted right afterthe first investigation. Whether the interim period is long or not matters alot. Habits change as the time passes by. Reading habits are no exception. Whatif the citizens of Leeville were wearied of literary classics as a result of thereplacement of prevailing high-speedcommunication methods like television and Internet where mystery novels may bemore popular than literary classics, or mystery novels are more likely torelease them from high pressure from their modern lives which leaves themsmothered than literary classics.

On the third point, there is no presentationabout how many sorts of books and how many in each sort of the public librariesin Leeville. It is an important factor when considering the frequency in thechecked-out books. It is possible that the libraries content much fewer, if any,classics literary than the mystery novels. As a result, there is no wonder thatthe checking-out frequency of mystery novels is much higher than the classicsliterary.

Besides, in the conclusion of thisargument, the speaker uses the word ”misrepresented” reflecting that the speakerdoes not consider the subjective thoughts of respondents in the first study. Didthe respondents really prefer literary classics or it is only their mentaldesire that pretending to be more literary and cultivated? It is understandablefor all people to have a desire for being more cultivated on surface thanindeed. Also, it is common to see one's deeds are not always in accordance with one's words. It should not be blamed on Leeville citizens, while, the speaker did not provide a proper research method.

On balance, the conclusion of this argumentis unwarranted as the analysis above. In order to lead support to itsconclusion, the speaker could take the following advices: 1) make a definite boundarybetween classics literary and the mystery novels, and exclude the overlapped part from investigation list; 2) more investigations should be conducted on the collection of books in Leeville's public libraries; 3) the first study could beconducted without recording the names of the respondents, that could partly decrease respondents' liability of lying.

钱钱去米国UID: 2761990

In this argument the author compare these tow different Completions incorrectly,hasty drawing the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented reading habits of Leeville citizens.However, such a conclusion has some obvious flaws, and I will explain it in fellowing aspects.

First of all ,the author fails to offer any significant evidences which can prove that reading habits of Leeville citizens is mystery novel.In the second study there is no exact datas can concluding that the respondents can on behalf of all Leeville citizens.what’s more the author does not give any information about how many people they chose in the second study as respondents,and whether this number is big encought when contrast with the population of Leeville.If the anwerse is no,the accuracy of this study can be suspected.

Secondly,the interval between these tow studys is unknown.If they have separated for a long time,the comparability dose not exist.As reading habits of Leeville citizens will change from time to time,which is awfully understandable.For instance ,one may love King Lear at first and may turns to be in favor of Death on the Nile at latter Besides,as time past,economic level will also develop and Leeville citizens may able to pay much more money on reading.Thus, people may prefer to buy books rather than to borrow it from the liberary when they become rich. They may buy these literary classics so that they do not need to borrow them from liberary.Another reason may be that, because Leeville citizens love literary classics ,they may buy these as favorites, while borrow mystery novel as pastime.

Thirdiy,identity of the respondents are unknown.And we don’t grasp that whether the identities of the respondents in these tow study are the same.If not,these tow groups of respondents may own different reading habits.Thus,one group would like literary classics and the other prefer mystery novel.At the same time, they may have different resding function,one group maybe always buying books,another may usually borrow books from liberary.
Finally,the a correlation between citizens reading habits and the mystery novel was the most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville does not necessary infer a causal relationshop.we do not know whether the public libraries in Leeville has literary classics,which people of the Leevile may best want to borrow.Neither can we known the precise number of mystery novels in Leevile liberary.If the number is too hurge comparing with the other books,the accuracy of second study can not be sure.

To sum up, this argument put two studys ,which is not comparable,together drawning loosely conclusion.The author ignore differences between these two studys seeming similar,but comparablity hardly can be prove in some aspects such as,how much time pasted between two studys,the possibility of different papulation patrons in two studys and so forth.

youngstoneUID: 2670818

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Leeville citizens preferred to read mystery novel instead of literary classics. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that most respondents of a survey said they are fond of literary classics while the same researchers found that these citizens most frequently borrowed mystery novel. Carefully examining the conclusion, we may find that the evidence leads little support to the conclusion.

In the first place, the survey by the University of Leeville lacks credibility. Neither do we know how many people are engaged in the survey, nor do we know whether they are representatives of all the citizens in Leeville. It is entirely possible that only a few people responded the survey, and in same way, maybe a large proportion of the respondents are students of the University. These students might major in literary classics or other literary –related subjects. Thus they would surely respond that they prefer literary classics. And we never know what about the other Leeville citizens’ preferences. Without the information of the respondents, we can hardly generalize any credible conclusion.

In the second place, we cannot simply generalize that most Leeville citizens choose mystery novels as their reading material only by the fact that mystery books are most frequently borrowed in public libraries. Because we do not know how many Leeville citizens borrow books as their reading material. If only a few people have the habits of borrowing books instead of buying them, the evidence cannot support the indication that Leeville citizens like mystery novels.

Even if the majority of Leeville citizens borrow books for reading, it does not necessarily mean that they read more mystery novels than literary classics. As it is known to all that most people would read a novel only once, which means after finishing reading, he will hardly read it once again. Therefore, it is reasonable that they immediately return the novel to the library and borrow another one. In contrast, people often read literary classics for many times because one can not get the idea or the spirit of them by reading only once. If people read them over and over again, they would surely not return them. As a result, though the frequency of borrowing mystery novels is high, it does not indicate most people prefer mystery novels than literary classics. Thirdly, it is also possible that only a few citizens are particularly fond of mystery novels and they usually have much free time. So they borrowing and returning contribute to the high frequency of mystery novels.

In conclusion, the argument suffered from several logical flaws because the results of the survey and the succeeding research hardly lead to the conclusion. To substantiate the final statement, the arguer should provides more information about the respondents of the first survey and it is better to offer more evidences besides the frequency of books borrowed in the public library.