argument137,终于限时写出来了

kingploughUID：2492921

贴到WORD里面之后发现8处拼写和语法错误，汗

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.
"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
WORDS: 554          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008/10/9

In this argument, the author claims that the Mason City need to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because after the river is cleaned up, more and more people will use the river for recreational activities. Close scrutiny shows that the evidences lend little support to the conclusion.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the residents of Mason City need to use Mason River for recreation. In this argument, the author cites that residents of Mason City are fond of water sports. If it is true, there must be many good places in Mason City for swimming, fishing, and boating. The gyms in this city must all have swimming pools because swimming is popular. There maybe several parks in the city where people can go for fishing or boating. If not, how can the residents consistently rank water sports as their favorite? For that matter, people will not eager to use Mason River as another place for water sports. Therefore, it is not necessary to improve the public lands along the river.

What is more, the author fails to consider other possible reasons for the seldom using of Mason River. No evidence shows that the quality of the water is the most important reason which prevent people to use Mason River for recreation. It is entirely possible that Mason River is too terrantial to be used for swimming or boating regardless how clean the water it is. Or perhaps there is a chemical factory nearby the river so that eating fish in the river is not healthy. The location of Mason River is also important, is it near the residential area? Without ruling out other possible reasons, the author can not convince me that residents will go to Mason River for recreation after the water is cleaned up.

The author also unfairly assumes that the Mason River will be definitely cleaned up. Although the agency has announced plans to clean up Mason River, it can not guarantee that the plans will be effective. Announcement is one thing, operation the cleaning plan is anoher thing. No evidence shows that the agency is responsible enough. If the agency is responsible and efficient, why there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river? If they keep the quality of the water well, there would be no need to clean up it. It would be better to disscuss the budget after the river is truely cleaned up.

Even if we accept all the assumptions, it does not necessarily means the Mason City council need to add budget for improvements to the public lands along the river. Nothing is mentioned the condition of the public lands, and we can not conclude that the lands can not meet residents needs. Does people need to use the public lands when they do water sports? In addtion, increasing budget will add the tax of residents, does that worth the cost?

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To substantiate it, the author need to do some detailed suverys about why people seldom use Mason River for water sports, and cite more evidence show that the agency will clean up the river. Furthermore, more datas are needed in order to bolster the plan for improving the public lands along the river.

StrayCrowUID：2348763

上完体育课 太累了 先改作文吧

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.
"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
WORDS: 554          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008/10/9

In this argument, the author claims that the Mason City need to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because after the river is cleaned up, more and more people will use the river for recreational activities. Close scrutiny shows that the evidences lend little support to the conclusion. 其实我一直很支持简单的开头 把精力投入到正文写作 这样的开头不错

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the residents of Mason City need to use Mason River for recreation. In this argument, the author cites that residents of Mason City are fond of water sports. If it is true, there must be many good places in Mason City for swimming, fishing, and boating. The gyms in this city must all have swimming pools because swimming is popular. There maybe several parks in the city where people can go for fishing or boating. If not, how can the residents consistently rank water sports as their favorite? 可能是因为我对这篇argu的批驳定位于那个本身不确定的survey 所以我觉得你这里的写法太过于武断 本身也可以被批驳 喜欢水上运动 这个城市就一定要有很多地方可以游泳？ 喜欢水上运动 每个体育馆都有必要有游泳池？而且介于这只是个调查 完全有可能因为调查的不合理 比如备选选项很少 除了水上运动 其他运动大家更不喜欢才勉强选水上运动 而且喜欢水上运动就一定会去实践吗？ 这也未必吧 很多人都是做调查的时候说喜欢 可究竟去不去参加 又是两码事情了 For that matter, people will not eager to use Mason River as another place for water sports. Therefore, it is not necessary to improve the public lands along the river. 所以我觉得应该这样批驳 首先调查本身是值得怀疑的----- 也许被调查者不具有代表性 比如在游泳馆附近展开调查 所以很有可能mason居民根本不是那么喜欢水上运动 即使他们真的很喜欢水上运动 ---------那么很有可能mason市已经有很多游泳馆公园可以满足他们的需求了 根本没有必要增加.... 个人觉得argument里面凡是出现 study survey research 一般都有问题

What is more, the author fails to consider other possible reasons for the seldom using of Mason River. No evidence shows that the quality of the water is the most important reason which prevent people to(有 prevent to? 我语法不好 告诉我一声 呵呵) use Mason River for recreation.赞 一语点破 argu就是需要这种清晰明了的句子 It is entirely possible that Mason River is too terrantial to be used for swimming or boating regardless how clean the water it is. Or perhaps there is a chemical factory nearby the river so that eating fish in the river is not healthy.这个例子比较一般 都chemical factory 哪里还敢游泳 钓鱼不健康 游泳就更不健康了 The location of Mason River is also important, is it near the residential area? 这里应该在加一句吧 这样结束太唐突了 至少加一个if not, 怎么样怎么样 Without ruling out other possible reasons, the author can not convince me that residents will go to Mason River for recreation after the water is cleaned up.

The author also unfairly assumes that the Mason River will be definitely cleaned up. Although the agency has announced plans to clean up (the) Mason River, it can not guarantee that the plans will be effective. Announcement is one thing, operation the cleaning plan is anoher thing.(这个用法确定吗？ 确定告诉我一声) No evidence shows that the agency is responsible enough. If the agency is responsible and efficient, why there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river? If they keep the quality of the water well, there would be no need to clean up it.关于这个批驳点我觉得从这个方面去写不太好 我觉得问题不是出在这个agency负责不负责上 而是在于他们是否真的有办法把水弄干净 弄干净以后 居民一定会买账吗？ 毕竟有心理阴影 这个道理很像 经过处理过的污水再生成为饮用水 尽管科学表明肯定没问题 可是你真的一定能接受吗？你这样写觉得有点牵强哈～  这里最好加一个连词therefore.否则突然反应不过来 It would be better to disscuss the budget after the river is truely cleaned up.

Even if we accept all the assumptions, it does not necessarily means the Mason City council need to add budget for improvements to the public lands along the river. Nothing is mentioned the condition of the public lands, and we can not conclude that the lands can not meet residents needs. Does people need to use the public lands when they do water sports? In addtion, increasing budget will add the tax of residents, does that worth the cost? 还成 中规中矩

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To substantiate it, the author need to do some detailed suverys about why people seldom use Mason River for water sports, and cite more evidence(+s?) show that the agency will clean up the river. Furthermore, more datas are needed in order to bolster the plan for improving the public lands along the river.

恩 的确限时会有一些影响 看得出逻辑问题就没有办法思考的这么严密了～
这方面还是要锻炼 而且很多例子的确在短时间内 很难想得很完美
模板的痕迹感觉更加重了 加油多练肯定会有效果的！

kingploughUID：2492921

我在GOOGLE上查到一句话：
It's one thing to sit down and viewgraph a spaceflight architecture, build hardware, then launch that hardware. It's another thing to actually operate it safely and efficiently, with knowledge and confidence
所以我想，是可以用It's one thing to， It's another thing to的吧

prevent from doing sth，是我错了


555，逻辑确实很弱，看过你的评论，我都怀疑自己的智商了。。。。
我要努力在限时的时候思考全面
努力:handshake

kingploughUID：2492921

“个人觉得argument里面凡是出现 study survey research 一般都有问题”
讨论：凡是出现survey都要批一下吗？

我在一个贴子里看到这样一个意见：
Yes, this is possible, but usually ETS wants us to accept that the presented info is true; in other words, it's best to assume the information is reliable unless of course the reported information could be faulted in the way it was gathered.     

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... %2Bimong&page=1

StrayCrowUID：2348763

恩 这篇文章我也看过
但是注意到imong分析的第2篇范文 其实那篇文章几乎就是围绕study的insufficient background来展开的
当然我前面的话有点极端 我觉得 这里其实是一个辨别 哪些是Argument里面暗示给你的前提 哪些则是确实逻辑有疏漏的study

Yes, this is possible, but usually ETS wants us to accept that the presented info is true; in other words, it's best to assume the information is reliable unless of course the reported information could be faulted in the way it was gathered.     

这句评论所指我想也仅仅是 针对我们所说前提
其实我觉得前提和逻辑有疏漏的study还是相对好区分的
我觉得一扫过去 就应该有感觉
我前面说 study survey research 一般都有问题
是因为argument 题目篇幅很短 一般都缺乏足够的叙述去证明 他的Study是很好的controlled
至少这篇文章里面的survey是有问题 有疏漏的
不是去硬掰

顺便有一个问题 那个帖子里面imong评的两篇范文为什么我都没有找到 ets官方的范文到底有多少？
还有pooh后来那篇打了4.0的文章 是谁打得分 ？ 官方的吗？

[ 本帖最后由 StrayCrow 于 2008-10-11 08:58 编辑 ]

kingploughUID：2492921

even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation
我觉得作者说得这么肯定，consistently，似乎是暗示接受这个survey。当然批一下应该更全面了。

但是，既然这个批了，下面的
Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river 不是也应该批呢？因为这个complaint 并不一定代表真阿实情况。

那两篇范文我在官方指南看到过。
应该能找到收录得比较全的范文电子版吧

StrayCrowUID：2348763

刚才又仔细看了遍pooh元老帖的那篇4.0的帖子
我不知道那个判分人的权威性如何
但是我个人的观点是
猎人那段不能算是前提 是一个很明显的攻击点
对于argument45而言 北极鹿的习性和冰层融化的确是前提 所以那篇文章开头和结尾那个批驳点 是有问题 比较牵强的