【 寄托No.1】杀G小组第2次作业——我们一起来读OG-A篇

ylhchdUID: 3055726

AW是G考试中的重要部分，
大部分人都不知道怎么入门
既然OG存在
那么 我们就一起来 读 OG
并且写下自己的
见解 分析 高级词汇和句子
Argu篇


作业要求：
（1）2月5日之前完成，大家在这个帖子里，每人占一楼，2月6日之前把自己的作业贴上去
（2）具体的内容要求：
A、针对OG的范文6 5 4分，进行自己的分析
B、分析内容包括对行文段落的把握，结构句式，词汇运用
（3）提交作业之后，必须阅读组内其他同学的笔记（至少两篇），相互学习，群内讨论，总结学习心得。
（4）作业必须完成，无故不完成者踢出群并从小组除名，有事不能完成作业者提前在群内请假，并在三日之内补交

sennilUID: 3137408

很早弄好了都忘贴上来了...= =


The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent humanexperience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history (好表达,前所未有的)where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typicalday reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute towork in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During theworkday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer thatprocesses information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leavinghome, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellitesorbiting the earth. Each of these common occurences would have been inconceivableat the turn of the 19th century.(介绍了一个大概的背景,用以前的技术和现在做比较,同时举出几个简单例子,用来表达如今的科技发展之快)

The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in theability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased relianceon technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previousquandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car,computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternatemethods of transport, information processing, and communication. Technology short circuits (限制)this thinking by making the problems obsolete.(解释了一下本文的中心 ,没有给出任何自己的观点)

However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativitythat marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows forconvenience. The car, computer, and phone all release additional time for people to livemore efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think forthemselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but (老外喜欢用倒装???)may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology(本段中心论点).  (开始举例子了)For example, theproliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a globalscale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warmingbecomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewisedependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation,allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to thesecomplex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists andpoliticians.

In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination(本段中心论点). Consider (这里应该是considering吧????)how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet hasallowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal formedical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informeddoctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed offto the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration canarrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UNMillenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques.The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.


This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hopeto the future of humanity(本段中心论点). By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goalscan now be achieved. Consider (这里应该是considering吧????) how the late 20th century witnessed the completeelimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistoricaldays, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine aworld free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpoxwas systematically targeted and eradicated.

(总结式的结束语...)Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to theimplementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will beno limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is noneed to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of humanimagination.

总结本文很容易懂没有复杂的句式没有太难懂的单词,作者凭借清晰的逻辑和关联词,还有不多但恰当的例子表达出想要的观点.  不过他怎么这么速度打字打得这么快...而且例子比较丰富...估计自己很难做到.... 这里一般都不是一边倒的政策,因为这样例子很难找又写不够字数...= =
1 Examples are persuasive and fully developed; reasoning is logically sound and well-supported.
2 Ideas in the essay are connected logically, with effective transitions used both
between paragraphs (“However,” or “In contrast to the statement”) and within paragraphs. 老外喜欢转折来表达清楚逻辑
3 Sentence structure is varied and complex, and the essay clearly demonstrates
facility with the “conventions of standard written English

琼央UID: 3236722

11# luobotou0365 、

发了后编辑-添加附件就成。。。我是介么弄的。。。

zlatan9UID: 2458066

Score 6:
In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this categoryclearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions provides compelling and thorough support for its main points conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English(i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors
其实6分还是允许有些小错误的，但人家说的很清楚，表述过程中需要一定技巧，其他就不多说了，ETS要求都写，清楚的找到，逻辑性的连接起来，同时要简洁，只是自己不一定做得到。悲哀。

6分
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use.It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding。非常直接的切入主题，没有多余的废话，符合6分原则。就2句话，简洁明了

Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author’s argument. 开头直接指出了第一个错误，范围和有效期，并用举例的方法说明调查的局限性，并提出自己的3个意见，这种报告才有用。

Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river. 指出第二个错误，表明自己的观点。然后提出抱怨的其他可能性，并指出抱怨采纳性的不足，总体结构和第一段类似。

Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage. 指出第三个错误。也是举例说明的方法，地理性的原因等都会造成论述的局限性。

A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding. 结尾段还是很简洁，指出做这些行动的确有好处，但论述存在局限性，无法获得拨款。
总体感觉，6分文章就觉得简洁明了，用最简洁的方式把问题说的很清楚，作者举例说明的也很得体。就是喜欢他表述时的长句。感觉就是这个意思，翻成中文觉得有点别扭，和很多国外文献一样，有些东西，个人觉得漂亮的英语表达中文是替代不了的。

Score 5
In addressing the specific task directions, a 5 response presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed examination of the argument and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical response in this category clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them in a generally perceptive way develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with appropriate transitions offers generally thoughtful and thorough support for its main points conveys ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor errors
5分要求有整体的思维和完善的检查体系，以及清楚的表达。同样允许有错误存在。觉得5分更强调一个general体系，没有6分要求的那么细
        
5分
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.指出发现了错误，并提出需要更多的信息和想法。没有6分那么华丽和直接，但也很完美表达出了意思。

For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents’ favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities. 指出第一个错误，用举例的方式，不像6分那么直接看到。提出高估了水上运动过会提高利用了吧，原因是调查的局限性。转折词BUT引出下文，觉得这写的很漂亮。容易抓住读者眼球。这段很多转折词，but, yet。。。带着反问句，语气很强烈。。需要学习的一种方法。

Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget. 承接上面一段的话题，还是语气强烈的反问句。
        
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up. 第二个错误，抱怨问题。和前面一样，排比反问句

Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from. 第三个错误。需要听到声音的来源。写的稍微简单觉得，在2、3个错误。

Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action. 总结，需要更多的信息才能获得拨款。没有6分那么有气势，但也简单明了。

全文最吸引我的就是那几个排比反问句，很有气势。非常直接的表达出了作者意图和态度。连接词和6分的不一样，likewise，closelylink，last。。。需要学习他的反问句，觉得真写出来特别有气势

Score 4
In addressing the specific task directions, a 4 response presents a competent examination of the argument and conveys meaning with acceptable clarity.
A typical response in this category identifies and examines aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task but may also discuss some extraneous points develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but may not connect them with transitions supports its main points adequately but may be uneven in its support demonstrates sufficient control of language to convey ideas with acceptable clarity generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written Englishbut may have some errors  

4分没有全文分析，觉得自己写出来差不多就这样，语言表达不地道，没有长句，给人很平淡的感觉，更像个说明文。其实觉得自己差就差在语言表达上，这个是需要努力的地方，毕竟A是可以拿满分的，打算背几个模板。。。。哈哈。

好词好句用红字标出来了。不太会写，呵呵。。。

cinkieUID: 2933620

Argument 评分标准与范文分析

Score 6
In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this category:
        clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully
        develop ideas cogently, organizes them logically and connects them with clear transitions
        provides compelling and thorough support for its main points
        conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety
        demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English(i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), but may have minor errors
6分的评分标准多次强调了文章的cogent和logical，在结构论证清晰的基础上更是增加了对语言的要求，抨击有力，给出合理、令人信服的理由。

Sample: Mason River
Essay Response — Score 6
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.（表明立场）

Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water reports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.（调查样本代表性错误）

Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the water for swimming, boating and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.（水质与水的使用情况因果关系错误+调查样本代表性错误）

Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.（净水与增加水用途的因果关系错误）

A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city government to allocate increased funding.（总结+重申立场）（609words）

本文一共抨击了4个逻辑错误，2个因果关系错误与2个调查类错误，文章结构清晰完整，语言用词及其精确、恰当。另外，文章在对逻辑错误顺序是按照题目推理顺序排序，环环相扣更具说服力。该文的语言高度我们无法达到，但行文结构仍然值得借鉴，写argument时，不仅要找出错误，合理地抨击它，更要注意行文顺序。

值得学习的句子：
............, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding
Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints.
Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage.

Essay Response — Score 5
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.（让步+立场）

For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities. Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river?The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons out residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.（对水上运动喜爱与水使用的因果关系错误+调查的有效性+干净水与水设施的因果关系错误）

Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the water. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new building fall into dilapidation while the state drages the river clean-up.（项目可行性质疑1，政治角度）

Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from the current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.（项目可行性质疑2，经济角度）

Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.（总结）(492 words)

本文找了5个错误，1个调查类错误、2个因果关系错误与2个可行性错误。文章的语言与结构相对于6分的作文较差，这是我们可以达到的高度，因此要认真研究学习。文章用不断提问的方式表达了自己的质疑，这种写法不好写，因此不值得借鉴。每段都有连接词，行文流畅，同样，本文对错误同样按照逻辑顺序排列，ETS在评论中也专门写到logical order and consider their connections，表明对逻辑错误的理解与相互之间的联系在写作中完全可以体现考生的逻辑思维能力。文中最后两点对项目可行性的分析独到新颖，一般写到这点的比较少。

值得学习的句子：
While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that.........
But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior.
Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership.
Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague.
We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives.
While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.

时间关系就只分析了5分和6分的作文，虽然ETS给的文章比较非主流，但也给了我们两个很明显的启示，cogent&logical.这两个因素的强弱直接决定了argument的高低

琼央UID: 3236722

好像能显现出来。。于是我是成功了吗。。？对范文的分析还没有完成。。努力中。。

greenbeanmeimeiUID: 2854957

【作文题目】
In surveysMason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) amongtheir favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through thecity is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park departmentdevotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities.For years therehave been complaints from residents about the quality of the river'swater and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announcedplans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is thereforesure to increase. The citygovernment should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget toriverside recreational facilities.


Write a response in which youexamine thestated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure toexplain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implicationsare if the assumptions prove unwarranted.


【6分作文回答】
         Whileit may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money toriverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make acogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy tounderstand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument isrife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead toincreased funding.（总结主要的错误和结论）


         Citingsurveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of watersports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. Forexample, the survey could have ① asked residents if they prefer using the riverfor water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may haveswayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have beenrepresentative of city residents, ② asking only those residents who live upon theriver. ③ The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated toriver sports. We just do not know.  Unless the survey is fullyrepresentative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back theauthor's argument.（举出survey不好的三个反例 按顺序编排）


          Additionally,the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating,and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is pollutedand smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on riversports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and theriver's current state is not effectively made. Though there have beencomplaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a widerange of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints.To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing anormed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently usethe river.（指出并不必定有关联的缺点+举出反例）


          Buildingupon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality ofthe river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up willresult in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell resultfrom problems which can be cleaned, this may be true.  For example, if thedecreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along theriver, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma resultsfrom the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this maynot be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell ofsulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to beafffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact uponriver usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improvedor not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water qualityand river usage.（指出重要观点，即不一定治理得好，并且举出反例和原因）


           A clean,beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads toincreased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of theriver, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons,city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreationalfacilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantlypersuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.（总结+引申）



【好词好句】
make a cogent case      cut down on

is rife with holes and assumptions
swayed residents toward     the scope and validity of that survey

fully representative, valid, and reliable,

cut down on        come to take advantage of


Regardless of whetherthe river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.

To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residentswhy they do not currently use the river.

本文结构完整，逻辑清晰，语言流畅且变化多。我们应该学习该文的语言运用和句式变化。对于逻辑漏洞的罗列，应该试图学习本文的思路，让读者看得不累且能够引发思考。加油！学习的楷模！


【5分作文回答】


       Theauthor of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riversiderecreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward onthe proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While thecorrelations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors thatprevent the City from diverting resources to this project.


          Forexample, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thoughtis that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But,survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who listexercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equala new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguousand vague.  While water sports may be among the residents' favoriteactivities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is thepriorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above asoftball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipalgolf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enoughinformation to discern future use of improved facilities.


         Closelylinked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will resultin increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at whatlevel will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requiresa survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Isriver water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docksand piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreationalactivities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the citygovernment forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign aproportional increase to the budget.


          Likewise,the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. Weneed to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Isthis a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the staterepresentative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort?  Will thestate fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovatingthe riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidationwhile the state drags the river clean-up.


         Last, theauthor does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from.The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase canbe afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away fromother key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The authornaively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on whereit will come from.


         Examiningall the various angles and factors involved with improving riversiderecreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget.While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is requiredto warrant any action.

【好词好句】
as indicators of actual behavior                 translate into usage
Even the wording of the survey results
remain ambiguous and vague.
Closely linked to the surveys is
the bold assumption that
a cleaner river will resultin increased usage
fall into dilapidation  favor over    sacrifice for
While the proposaldoes highlight apossibility, more information is required to warrant any action.
运用了很多疑问句 但是觉得不适合我们模仿；本文结构可以模仿。语言和用词值得借鉴。但是感觉很多的逻辑攻击并没有在点上，使得攻击力度不大。需要避免。

【4分作文回答】

The problem with the arguement is the assumption that if theMason River were cleaned up, that people would use it for water sports andrecreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports amongtheir favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those samepeople have the financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests.


However,even if the writer of the arguement is correct in assuming that the Mason Riverwill be used more by the city's residents, the arguement does not say why therecreational facilities need more money. If recreational facilities alreadyexist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund them?If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in thecoming years, then they will be making more money for themselves, eliminatingthe need for the city government to devote more money to them.


Accordingto the arguement, the reason people are not using the Mason River for watersports is because of the smell and the quality of water, not because therecreational facilities are unacceptable.


If thecity government alloted more money to the recreational facilities, then thebudget is being cut from some other important city project. Also, if theassumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not use the river forrecreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for therecreational facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the riverto attract more people in the first place.

【好词好句】
eliminating the need for

alloted more money to

pursue those interests
本文逻辑错误找得太少，以及结构依我看并不完整，应该避免此类错误的发生。使得在认清逻辑漏洞的同时，能够阐述自己的观点，并自圆其说。

良药重口UID: 3214270

Argument 评分标准与范文分析
大家先看看六分的和五分的评分要求吧
Score 6
In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this category:
        clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully
        develop ideas cogently, organizes them logically and connects them with clear transitions
        provides compelling and thorough support for its main points
        conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety
        demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English(i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), but may have minor errors
Score 5
In addressing the specific task directions, a 5 response presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed examination of the argument and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical response in this category:
clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them in a generally perceptive way
develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically and connects them with appropriate transitions
offers generally thoughtful and thorough support for its main points
conveys ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety
demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor errors

Score 4
In addressing the specific task directions, a 4 response presents a competent examination of the argument and conveys meaning with acceptable clarity.
A typical response in this category:
identifies and examines aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task, but may also discuss some extraneous points
develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily, but may not connect them with transitions
supports its main points adequately, but may be uneven in its support
demonstrates sufficient control of language to convey ideas with reasonable clarity
generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English, but may have some errors
Sample: Mason River
Essay Response — Score 6
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
鲜明的立场和观点
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water reports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
提出样本方面的不具代表性
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the water for swimming, boating and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
找出文中逻辑疏漏（缺少使用不一定是由于水质的原因）以及数据的模糊（到底有多少人complaint）
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.联系第三段，进一步提出水质是否能被治理
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city government to allocate increased funding.（609words）
重新声明立场
总结：作者穿插使用了大量的模板句和实体句，显示了流利的文字驾驭能力以及敏锐的逻辑推理能力，更让我们值得学习的是该作者并未将OG所列出的所有逻辑漏洞一一列出，而是挑出几个重要的，然后再深刻而透彻的阐述之，这正体现了ETS考试要求的思维的复杂性。


Essay Response — Score 5
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.又是声明立场呵呵
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as top priority.（这货应该是个美国本土的） Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities. Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river?The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons out residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.
找出了逻辑漏洞（调查结果≠实际结果）
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the water. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new building fall into dilapidation while the state drages the river clean-up.
提出另一个逻辑漏洞（政府宣布即将治理河流就一定会治理河流？）
Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from the current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.
从可行性方面质疑author的argument
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.(492 words)
总结：
本文作者同样具有较高的文字语言表达能力和逻辑洞察力，甚至还可以从字里行间推断其可能就是美国本土大学生（新年计划，campaign神马的）。然而文中美中不足是没有将论断的复杂性写出来，而且用语比较口语化，缺少一些像六分范文的强悍的写作语言（rife with等）。但总体来说，该讲到的点都讲到了，还是很值得我们这些新人所学习的
时间不太充裕，就只写了两篇的看法了，大家加油哟

846136085UID: 2987171

Score 6:In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this category

clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully

develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions

provides compelling and thorough support for its main points

conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety

demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English(i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors
Score 5
In addressing the specific task directions, a 5 response presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed examination of the argument and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical response in this category

clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them in a generally perceptive way

develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with appropriate transitions

offers generally thoughtful and thorough support for its main points

conveys ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety

demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor errors
Score 4
In addressing the specific task directions, a 4 response presents a competent examination of the argument and conveys meaning with acceptable clarity.
A typical response in this category

identifies and examines aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task but may also discuss some extraneous points

develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but may not connect them with transitions

supports its main points adequately but may be uneven in its support

demonstrates sufficient control of language to convey ideas with acceptable clarity

generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written Englishbut may have some errors
评分标准里的关键词都已经高亮了，下面就范文做一点自己的分析
首先是6分的神作！
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.

Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author’s argument.

Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.

Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.

A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.

文章整体上分了三大部分，中间分别针对题目中的一个缺陷或错误进行。首先针对题目中运用了统计数字，作者指出了3个问题：1、误导性的问题设计；2、样本的代表性不足；3、调查和数据不够充分，随后又对如何修正给出了建议。其次，针对使用情况和现状之间的必然联系提出疑问，随后也给出了解决方案。第三，针对“a river clean up will result in increase river usage”表示疑问，随后又质疑了水质差的原因。
看了6分的文章最大的感想，就是作者没有简单地摆出题目中的错误，而是进一步做出了分析和论证。句子和用词的确不错，但我还在先从思路问题开始吧。
之后是5分的作文
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.

For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents’ favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities.

Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.

Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up. Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.

Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.

文章依然分别针对不同的问题进行分析，语言上最大的特点就是大量反问的运用。首先，还是针对统计调查，但多了一个prediction的问题；其次，也是针对clean up会增加usage的质疑；第三，计划的实施问题；最后，政府是否可以承担费用。
和6分文章给人感觉上有些不同，首先就是没有进一步的分析和修改意见，另外就是问题提出的针对性不够，这可能也就是5分的原因。

最后是4分的文章，这个感觉和自己水平比较接近了。
The problem with the arguement is the assumption that if the Mason River were cleaned up, that people would use it for water sports and recreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those same people have the financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests.

However, even if the writer of the arguement is correct in assuming that the Mason River will be used more by the city’s residents, the arguement does not say why the recreational facilities need more money. If recreational facilities already exist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund them? If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in the coming years, then they will be making more money for themselves, eliminating the need for the city government to devote more money to them.

According to the arguement, the reason people are not using the Mason River for water sports is because of the smell and the quality of water, not because the recreational facilities are unacceptable.

If the city government alloted more money to the recreational facilities, then the budget is being cut from some other important city project. Also, if the assumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not use the river for recreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for the recreational facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the river to attract more people in the first place.

第一感觉是有点短，另外语言上也没有什么特别的感觉。从结构上讲，感觉衔接得不够好。从内容上讲，主要针对了两个问题，一个还是clean up会增加usage的质疑，另一个是funding问题，感觉逻辑上的针对性不够，而且最后和评分标准上一样“discuss some extraneous points”，说了一些和主题无关的问题。


第一次比较仔细地看作文，感觉压力很大呀～～

babyenochUID: 3153670

Score 6
In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this category
clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them insightfully
develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
provides compelling and thorough support for its main points
conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety
demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors

Score5
In addressing the specific task directions, a 5 response presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed examination of the argument and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical response in this category
clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and examines them in a generally perceptive way
develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with appropriate transitions
offers generally thoughtful and thorough support for its main points
conveys ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety
demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor errors

其实把5分和6分的评分标准这样一标注，就很明确这两个档次的差别了，可能对于我们大多数人来说（牛人除外），这个差别是比较难飞跃的，但是4分和5分之间的差别我们还是可以弥补的，只要我们的练习到位，因为在我看来4分标准里描述的一些文章缺点应该还是能够避免的~~尽量能A拿5分吧~4分的标准就不贴了，和5分的差别很明显

Score 6 Response

While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
首段让步+总述，虽然….可能是对的，但是文章…..；虽然很容易理解…..，但是文章…..简要的指出了文章的缺陷所在。
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of water sports. （引出问题）It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. （攻击）For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports.（支持对validity的质疑） The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports.（支持对scope的质疑） We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author’s argument.
（此段是对调查的质疑）
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly.（引出问题）While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made.（让步攻击：是河脏所以才没人用，还是没人用所以河才脏） Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints.（攻击） To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.（建议）
（此段是对原因推理的质疑）
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean-up will result in increased river usage.（提出问题） If the river’s water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true.（提出方法可行的可能性） For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied.（举例） But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true.（方法不可行的可能性） There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. （举例）Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage. （就算治理好了，是否就会有人用）
（此段是对方法的质疑）
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.
（结尾段提出自己的建议，并简要总结）

之前只把A的攻击点找了一遍，然后就一直在准备issue，这也是第一次仔细看一篇A范文。看完之后，不免就和issue范文比较了一下，总体来说的话，A的确还是要比I好写一些，整篇文章比较模式化。比如说这篇范文，首段让步+总述，结尾段建议+总结。主体三段的话，每段攻击一个漏洞，而且每段的模式也很相像，都是首句提出有问题的论述，然后直接展开攻击，或者让步攻击，然后举例支持自己的质疑，最后有的部分给一点善意的小建议。其实题库中的很多题目都与这个类似，我觉得大家完全可以尝试模仿这篇范围的结构，注意是结构。。。不是用它做模板。。。
5分的范文我也看过了，看过6分范文再来看这篇的确还是能体会出二者之间的差别。我感觉5分范文的论述更像是在直接的展现我们的思维过程，就是完全你看题干怎么想的，就怎么表述出来，只不过选择重要的漏洞并加上关联词将他们连贯的表述出来，没有利用让步语气。5分的攻击多利用疑问语气，没有例证支持，也没有建议，可能就会显得不够深入吧，纯属个人见解。
4分的就不多说了吧，这篇文章感觉没头没尾的，一上来就进行攻击。而且最后一段也比较致命吧，官方也给出了评论，说最后一段make some extraneous, unsupported assertions of its own.这也提示我们在行文的时候一定要站在很可观的角度，不要随意的下一些主观判断或者很肯定的说法，类似于if。。。。，。。。。。这样很容易就被ETS给攻击了= =
三篇范文相比的话，也可以很明确，并不是漏洞找的越多分数就越高，而关键在于有没有深入下去；另外就是一篇A我们可以找到很多漏洞，但最终成文需要挑选那些对结论削弱最厉害的漏洞进行攻击；最后就是一定要客观~~认真看一下6分范文就可以发现，整篇文章作者都没有任何的主观断言。个人认为运用让步的确让读者感觉很舒服
最后的话，我感觉，多练习一下，5分的水平应该还是可以达到的，6分的话可能有点难度，但是也不是没可能吧。只不过人家的语言驾驭能力的确还是了得~~平时还是要多看些优秀范文积累一下语言吧，不能在语言上砸了锅，特别像我这种语言弱势群体= =幸好A的语言还是有章可循的。。。。。前段时间写I的确是给折磨的不轻，吭吭哧哧半天都写不好，这几天尝试写写A找找信心吧，哈哈~~~~不过刚开始肯定还是不好下笔，呃。。。。。不过还是照着6分的目标努力吧，这样的话，拿到5分的可能性才会达到最大~
另外，欢迎大家一起讨论A的漏洞哈~~~关键的~~~

leijerry888UID: 3143968

首先，列出自己先找出的主要逻辑关系和其中可能存在的问题（请往死里拍！！！）：
1 调查说人们喜欢（什么样的调查；喜欢就会用么）
2 人们不用河（如何得知）
3 公园管理没投钱维护（不投钱的原因是否正当）
4 人们抱怨水质（如何得知，抱怨水质时候水质就真的有问题，抱怨是否真实）
5 州里开始投钱清理水质（只是说了计划，万一计划N年后清理，那明年就让市政府投钱也没用）
6 因此水上运动增加（且不说所有客观条件满足的话，人们会不会去运动，除去水质，会不会有别的更重要的原因导致人们不进行运动）
7 因此市政府应投钱
Essay Response — Score 6
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
总起全文，让步的指出题目的结论，说明题目中充满不足信的假设
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know.  Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
第一个逻辑错误：survey是否可信。指出survey不可信的可能原因。
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
第二个逻辑错误：人们不使用河流是由于河水污染。指出两者的因果关系不明。指出应提供广泛可信的调查来找出人们不使用河流的真正原因
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true.  For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.
第三个逻辑错误：清理河水可以导致对河流的使用提高。指出清理可能无法解决污染问题（基于第二段的假设，认为人们不使用河流就是由于污染问题），因此，清理可能就无法导致对河流使用的提高。
此段：①在开头特别指出是建立在第二段所指因果逻辑关系成立的基础上；②结尾处再次重申无论此段的逻辑关系是否成立，上一段中的逻辑关系依然有问题。这两处体现出了评分标准中要求的logically organized和段落之间的clear transitions。
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.
结尾，重申，题目中的结论也许是有道理的，但是argument没有说服力。
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
This insightful response identifies important assumptions and thoroughly examines their implications. The proposal to spend more on riverside recreational facilities rests on three questionable assumptions, namely:
that the survey provides a reliable basis for budget planning
that the river’s pollution and odor are the only reasons for its limited recreational use
that efforts to clean the water and remove the odor will be successful
By showing that each assumption is highly suspect, this essay demonstrates the weakness of the entire argument. For example, paragraph 2 points out that the survey might not have used a representative sample, might have offered limited choices, and might have contained very few questions on water sports.
Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and limited use of the river for recreation. Complaints about water quality and odor may be coming from only a few people and, even if such complaints are numerous, other completely different factors may be much more significant in reducing river usage. Finally, paragraph 4 explains that certain geologic features may prevent effective river clean-up. Details such as these provide compelling support.
In addition, careful organization ensures that each new point builds upon the previous ones. For example, note the clear transitions at the beginning of paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the logical sequence of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).
Although this essay does contain minor errors, it still conveys ideas fluently. Note the effective word choices (e.g., "rife with . . . assumptions" and "may have swayed residents"). In addition, sentences are not merely varied; they also display skillful embedding of subordinate elements. For example, note the sustained parallelism in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph.
Since this response offers cogent examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a score of 6.
Essay Response — Score 5
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior.  Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague.  While water sports may be among the residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities.
第一个逻辑错误：人们对survey的回答可能与实际行为不同，且即使相同，调查只是说水上运动是最喜欢的运动之一，调查未考虑其他最喜欢运动的影响。
Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.
第二个逻辑错误：水质与人们对河水使用之间是否有因果关系，有如何的因果关系。指出解决方案是更加细致的survey。
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort?  Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up.
第三个逻辑错误：州政府announce plan之后执行的情况未知。
Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.
第四个逻辑错误：市政府如果投钱，钱从哪来是argument未考虑的。
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.
结尾，指出argument说服力不够，需要更多的信息来做定夺。
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 5
Each paragraph in the body of this perceptive essay identifies and examines an unstated assumption that is crucial to the argument. The major assumptions discussed are:
that a survey can accurately predict behavior
that cleaning the river will, in itself, increase recreational usage
that state plans to clean the river will actually be realized
that Mason City can afford to spend more on riverside recreational facilities
Support within each paragraph is both thoughtful and thorough. For example, paragraph 2 points out vagueness in the wording of the survey: Even if water sports rank among the favorite recreational activities of Mason City residents, other sports may still be much more popular. Thus, if the first assumption proves unwarranted, the argument to fund riverside facilities — rather than soccer fields or golf courses — becomes much weaker. Paragraph 4 considers several reasons why river clean-up plans may not be successful (the plans may be nothing more than campaign promises or funding may not be adequate). Thus, the weakness of the third assumption undermines the argument that river recreation will increase and riverside improvements will be needed at all.
Instead of dismissing each assumption in isolation, this response places them in a logical order and considers their connections. Note the appropriate transitions between and within paragraphs, clarifying the links among the assumptions (e.g., "Closely linked to the surveys …" or "The answer to this question requires...").
Along with strong development, this response also displays facility with language. Minor errors in punctuation are present, but word choices are apt and sentences suitably varied in pattern and length. The response uses a number of rhetorical questions, but the implied answers are always clear enough to support the points being made.
Thus, the response satisfies all requirements for a score of 5, but its development is not thorough or compelling enough for a 6.
Essay Response — Score 4
The problem with the arguement is the assumption that if the Mason River were cleaned up, that people would use it for water sports and recreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those same people have the financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests.
指出argument的问题：河水清理则人们会去使用河流。指出逻辑错误：即使人们说水上运动是最爱，也不一定有能力去进行这项运动。
各人认为这一段的构成不是很合理，尤其在第一局上，感觉对于开头而言，比较片面。且第二句和第一句没什么关系。
However, even if the writer of the arguement is correct in assuming that the Mason River will be used more by the city's residents, the arguement does not say why the recreational facilities need more money. If recreational facilities already exist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund them? If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in the coming years, then they will be making more money for themselves, eliminating the need for the city government to devote more money to them.
在上一段中逻辑关系成立的基础上，指出第二个逻辑错误：argument中未说明投钱的用处具体是什么。
According to the arguement, the reason people are not using the Mason River for water sports is because of the smell and the quality of water, not because the recreational facilities are unacceptable.
指出第三个逻辑错误：既然argument自己说是由于污染问题，人们不使用河流，那么就不是设施问题，干嘛还要让市政府给设施投钱。
个人认为这个点选的很好，很体现逻辑洞察力，只是展开的还略显不足。
If the city government alloted more money to the recreational facilities, then the budget is being cut from some other important city project. Also, if the assumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not use the river for recreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for the recreational facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the river to attract more people in the first place.
这个结尾有点遗憾，写出盲目认同argument结论的后果。感觉有点只呻吟，不开药。
Reader Commentary for Essay Response — Score 4
This competent response identifies two unstated assumptions:
that cleaning up the Mason River will lead to increased recreational use
that existing facilities along the river need more funding
Paragraph 1 offers reasons why the first assumption is questionable (e.g., residents may not have the necessary time or money for water sports). Similarly, paragraphs 2 and 3 explain that riverside recreational facilities may already be adequate and may, in fact, produce additional income if usage increases. Thus, the response is adequately developed and satisfactorily organized to show how the argument depends on questionable assumptions.
However, this essay does not rise to a score of 5 because it fails to consider several other unstated assumptions (e.g., that the survey is reliable or that the efforts to clean the river will be successful). Furthermore, the final paragraph makes some extraneous, unsupported assertions of its own. Mason City may actually have a budget surplus so that cuts to other projects will not be necessary, and cleaning the river may provide other real benefits even if it is not used more for water sports.
This response is generally free of errors in grammar and usage and displays sufficient control of language to support a score of 4.
列出几点最直接的感想总结：
1、找出的逻辑错误点不能太少，而且要找主要矛盾。
2、每段一个逻辑错误，条理清晰。且在段首或尾加上承接词句，体现逻辑关系和文章结构组织的条理性，也可快速的轰出字数。
3、开头写出argument的结论，清晰的点明它存在问题。结尾也要清晰的用呈上的句子，然后再次指出由题目假设给出结论是有问题的。
4、感觉和issue相比，对语言的运用要求有所讲题，至少感觉范文比issue的容易读懂了（不知道是不是错觉），但是毫无疑问的是，6分文章逻辑性极强，细细读起来沁人心脾。

第一次解除ARGUE文章，请大家多拍，指出我的问题，先谢过各位了！
Jerry Lei
2012年2月6日0:30 @home