1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by 小轶——再不去闯，梦想永远只会是梦想

domudomuUID: 2670967

第十六页
准备argue任务
因为argue的认为是评估你在教育中发挥的分析性写作和非正式的理由说服技巧。这个是设计了要求学习的某一特殊方面或者是受过特别训练的孩子的优势。许多大学的课本会在修辞和机构组成方面讲一些非正式的逻辑和批判性思考，可能会有帮助但是即使这些可能会比任务需要更细节更有技巧。希望你知道分析或技巧的方法。例如一个实验小学的校长可能总结说新的操场设施提高了了学生的出勤率因为自从操场建成缺席率下降了。你不需要知道校长的一些错误观念。你会很容易明白对于这一出勤率的提升有其他可能性的解释。提供几个常见的例子，可能建议验证这个结论。比如，缺席率可能会因为天气变暖而下降。这必须有确实的证据证明这个。

即使你不需要知道特别的分析技巧和用辞，你应当对argue论证的方法比较熟悉并且有关键的概念包括以下几个方面：
1)另一种解释——一个可能的可以引起问题的竞争版本。另一种解释削弱或限定了原来的解释，因为他可以解释现在的事实。
2）分析——将一些东西分裂成他的组成部分以便理解他们是怎么被组织在一起从而形成一篇文章的，同样也是一个陈述，通常是在写作和过程的结果
3）论述——一个观点或者一系列的有提供理由和证据的观点。一线理由意味着论证一些东西的正确性或错误性。
4）假设——一种信仰，通常不被陈述或者检验的，有些人必须为了持续一个特别的地位而保持，一些被保证的事但是必须试正确的因为为了结论是正确的。
5）结论——这一系列理由的终点，如果理由听起来是有效的，就此会产生断言

一个很棒的准备分析论述的任务的过程就是练习写一些已出版的argue主题。
有一种练习的方式适合每一个人。一些人愿意不限制在30分钟内就进行练习。如果你是这样的，用你需要的所有时间来分析这个argue。无论你选择哪种方式你都应该
1)仔细的阅读这个argue——你可能想读他不止一次
2）尽可能的理解里面的观点结论和假设
3）想很多种其他的解释方法并举更多的反例
4)想出更多的可以削弱或者支持的证据
5）问你自己这个argue种的什么改变可以让这个理由更好
简要的以笔记的形式写下这些想法。当你和你的分析更加深入，看这个笔记然后把他们以讨论的形式排好（可能编号）。然后充分的依次发展你的每一个观点写一个评论性的文章。即使如果你选择不写一个整个文章，你可以发现他对于分析写作一些argue十分有利。当你变得更快或者更有自信的时候，你就可以联系写一写argue在限时的三十分钟之内这样你会对如何在实际的考试中控制你的速度有个一非常好的认识。例如，你不会想要如此深入的讨论或者提供同一个例子在一个点上。这样不仅你花掉了时间，还没有时间议论别的点

domudomuUID: 2670967

第十七页
你可能会想要从你的写作导师或者哲学老师或者其他在他的专业中懂得批判性思考的人那里得到关于你的习作的评论。可能在同一题目上和同伴同学交换了改，并且讨论参照评分准则来讨论彼此的习作是很常见的。不要过多的关注于看到习作写到或错过什么条例而评准确的分数，因为每一次你所要做的就是提高你的水平。

怎样理解argue中出现的数字，百分比，和统计数据

一些arguement提供了包括了数字，百分比和数据作为argue的结论证据。例如，一个argue可能声称一个今年特定的活动没有去年的受欢迎因为今年只有100人参加而去年有150个人参加，一个33%的下降出席率。记住你并不是被要求了做一个数学上的有数字，百分比和数据的任务。相反你应当觉得这些是用来支持结论的证据。在上述例子当中，结论是一个事件变得不那么受欢迎。你应当问问你自己：在100和150人之间对于支持那个结论有什么差异性？注意到这一点就会其他可能的解释：比如今年天气可能特别的差，今年的活动可能在一个很不方便的时候举行，今年的活动花费可能有所上涨，或者可能在同一个时候有其他很受欢迎的活动也在举行着。这每一种解释都可以为出席率差距进行解释。这样会削弱这个活动部那么受欢迎的结论。相似的是，百分比可以依照这个百分比代表的确切数据来支持或者削弱一个结论。考虑到这个观点一个学校的戏剧社需要更多的资金因为他的成员百分百增长了。这百分百的增长如果之前有100个人现在有200个就可以说是有意义的。反而，如果是从5个人增长到十个人那么就是没有意义的。记住很多数字，百分比逐句在argument主题上只是支持结论的证据，你应当考虑他们是否支持这个结论

形成你的文章
你可以自由的选择组织并发展你的argue分析。你的文章可能但不一定，特别用你学到的英语组成或写作课程的写作战略。GRE阅卷人不会看到一个特别的写作模式方式。事实上，当大家都已训练成为GRE的阅卷人，他们看过成百上千的文章，这样即使在内容和形式上有很到的跨度，展示批判性和分析写作的相同水平。阅卷者会看到比如，一些例文6分在一开始就是简单的组织argue然后展开写他的观点。这些阅卷人知道一个作者可以得到一个高分通过展开批判的主要观点。阅卷人知道作者可以得到一个高分通过分析并展开分析中的几个观点，或者通过定义argue的缺点并加强展开批判。你会想看一些例文，特别是5分到6分之间的例文，看其他的作者好似怎样成功的展开并组织他们的评论。

你应当选择模板并组织你想支持的并加强整体的批判性影响。这意味着用尽可能多或者少的，只要是你觉得合适的段落数量来为你的观点论证——例如，当你的讨论转换到一个新的分析点时，重新用一个段落。你会想在结构和argue本身周围组织你的评论。或者你可能想开始就指出一个中心问题假设然后继续讨论相关的argue理由。相似的是，你可能想用一些能帮助说明你的批判的例子来推动你的讨论。这个文章采取的形式是什么并不重要，而是你分析这个argue的洞察力，和与你分析的连贯性与学术阅卷人的交流在整篇文章中。

domudomuUID: 2670967

第十八页
argue例文
argue策略
这个argue应用了特别的医院去统计了一下在支持“investing in high quality protective gear and reflective equipment”能降低滚轴溜冰事故中严重受伤的风险。

在展开你的分析，你应当问你自己这个医院策略是不是支持这个结论，你可能想问下你自己这样几个问题：

1）在滚轴滑雪事故之后，去急症室的滚轴滑雪运动员占所有运动员的多少比例？
2）是不是在滚轴滑雪事故之后去急症室的人代表了普通的滚轴滑雪运动员？3）有没有谁在滚轴滑雪事故之后受伤了却没有去急症室的
4） 去急症室的运动员是不是都是严重的受伤了
5）带了保护设备的25%的滑雪运动员是不是和没有带保护措施的那75%的运动员伤得一样重？
6）对于滚轴滑雪运动来说是不是街道或者停车场本来就比其他地方更危险
7） 对于减少滚轴滑雪运动严重事故的风险来说，中等品质的设备是不是和高品质的效果一样
8）有没有出科设备以外的因素——比如说天气条件，可见度，滑轮的技巧——这都可能与轮滑者的受伤有着密不可分的联系

考虑到一些问题的可能答案比如那些会帮你定义可能，其他解释，和你可以展开你的批论的为弱点。

domudomuUID: 2670967

第十九页
6分范文：
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either provent accidents from occuring inthe first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention.
Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.
The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and repsonsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.

六分评论——
这个突出的作文评论了作者的洞察力和分析技巧；这个引言，分表明题目的错误推理能够". . .inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear,"他对论述中的每一个根本错误进行了综合测试。特别的，作者显露出了破坏论述的几个要点。
1）防护和保护道具师不同的
2）轮滑者船上轮子会少倾向于事故因为他们会本能的更加理性和对自己负责。
3）严重的创伤并没有种类的区别
4）轮滑可能不需要高质量的东西来更有利化
彻底的
这个讨论是平滑的并且由逻辑组成的，而且每一个点都是彻底的首肯的展开的。并且，这个习作是间接的经济的无错误的。句子是多变的混合的，措辞是有影响力且严谨的。

domudomuUID: 2670967

第二十页
五分作文
The argument presented is limited but useful. It indicates a possible relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lack of protective equipment. The statistics cited compel a further investigation of the usefulness of protective gear in preventing or mitigating roller-skating related injuries.However,the conclusion that protective gear and reflective equipment would "greatly reduce.risk of being severely injured" is premature   
Data is lacking with reference to the total population of skaters and the relative levels of experience, skill and physical coordination of that population. It is entirely possible that further research would indicate that most serious injury is averted by the skater's ability to react quickly and skillfully in emergency situations.
Another area of investigation necessary before conclusions can be reached is identification of the types of injuries that occur and the various causes of those injuries. The article fails to identify the most prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries. It also fails to correlate the absence of protective gear and reflective equipment to those injuries. For example, if the majority of injuries are skin abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be made for the usefulness of protective clothing mentioned. Likewise, if injuries are caused by collision with vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars) or pedestrians, then light-reflective equipment might mitigate the occurences. However, if the primary types of injuries are soft-tissue injuries such as torn ligaments and muscles, back injuries and the like, then a greater case could be made for training and experience as preventative measures.

五分评论
照片强有力的文章使用了权利批判论述，观察"indicates a possible relationship"但是他的总结"is premature."他提出了三个核心的问题，如果回答的话就可以削弱论述的合理性：

1）滑雪者的整个人数的特征是什么？
2）预防和减轻的滚轴中引起的保护和反射装备的用处是什么？
3）哪种事故持续的时间比较长原因是什么

作者通过可能的答案来展开这些问题可能加强或削弱argue。这篇文章没有很有洞察力的分析该argue或者整个展开批论犹如六分作文一般。但是清晰的结构，强大的语言控制，很大的程度上保证了获得超过四分的分数。

domudomuUID: 2670967

第二十一页
四分作文
Although the argument stated above discusses the importance of safety equipment as significant part of avoiding injury, the statistic quoted are vague and inconclusive.Simply because 75 percent of the people involved in roller-skating accidents are not wearing the stated equipment does no automatically implicate the lack of equipment as the cause of injury.The term "accidents" may imply a great variety of injuries. The types of injuries one could incur by not wearing the types of equipment stated above are minor head injuries; skin abrasions or possibly bone fracture of a select few areas such as knees, elbows, hands, etc. (which are in fact most vulnerable to this sport); and/or injuries due to practising the sport during low light times of the day. During any physically demanding activity or sport people are subjected to a wide variety of injuries which cannot be avoided with protective clothing or light-reflective materials. These injuries include inner trauma (e.g., heart-attack); exhaustion; strained muscles, ligaments, or tendons; etc. Perhaps the numbers and percentages of people injured during roller-skating, even without protective equipment, would decrease greatly if people participating in the sport had proper training, good physical health, warmup properly before beginning (stretching), as well as take other measures to prevent possible injury, such as common-sense, by refraining from performing the activity after proper lighting has ceased and knowing your personal limitations as an individual and athlete. The statistics used in the above reasoning are lacking in proper direction considering their assertions and therefore must be further examined and modified so that proper conclusions can be reached.

四分评论
这个充足的范文论述的模糊性和不确定的“统计”。这篇文章坚定并批判了没有逻辑的理由来自使用论述中的统计造成的误导的不和逻辑的推理：

1）没用装备可能是自动的是导致这个受伤的主要原因
2）这个事故可能只小部分受伤
3）受伤可能导致自其它原因——在黑天里滑雪，并没有做好训练和热身，没有认识到自身条件的限制性

作者完全可以把握论述的弱点。这个ideas是清晰的和相联系的，但是这篇文章缺乏过渡的话语，展开也只是刚好够而已

语言的控制室刚好足够的，作者成功的控制并清楚英语的写作条例。总的来说这篇四分作文缺乏更多的展开导致不足5分

三分文章
The arguement is well presented and supported, but not completely well reasoned. It is clear and concisely written. The content is logically and smoothly presented. Statistics cited are used to develop support for the recommendation, that roller skaters who invest in protective gear and reflective equipment can reduce their risk of severe, accidental injuries. Examples of the types of protective equipment are described for the reader. Unfortunately, the author of the argement fails to note that merely by purchasing gear and reflective equipment that the skater will be protected. This is, of course, falacious if the skater fails to use the equipment, or uses it incorrectly or inappropriately. It is also an unnecessary assumption that a skater need purchase high-quality gear for the same degree of effectiveness to be achieved. The argument could be improved by taking these issues into consideration, and making recommendations for education and safety awareness to skaters.
三分评论
这篇的第一部分写的不错，但是由于限制性的描述了这篇argument。第二部分还论述出两个假设

1）购买了保护装置的人会使用该装置
2)高质量的装备比其他的装备更有效果
这些点都足够充分的组织一些分析因此可以的到三分。但是这些点都没有充分的分析道三分的水平

domudomuUID: 2670967

刚翻得第二十二页不见了，哭哭！！！！！！！！不要再来一遍了，做实验去了

domudomuUID: 2670967

第二十三页
例题
GRE分析写作1
在一个issue上表达你的观点  45分钟
你会有45分钟来计划并且组成一个文章来表达你在一个你选择的主题的观点。一篇主题的文章而另外一个会得到零分。你会在两个issue题目中选择一个。每一个主题会简洁的出现。你可以自由的接受，拒绝或者在一定范围内赞同观点，这样这个你陈述的ideas就要和你所选择的题目相关。通过用例子和理由来支持你的观点，这些例子可以来自你的阅读，经历，观察，和学术学习。

在你做选择之前，仔细的读每一道主题。然后决定你要选择的题目，必须试有利的并且有充分理由的。GRE的大学工作者改卷人会读你的文章然后平分基于以下的几点，你做的怎么样
1）考虑这个issue的复杂性和意涵
2）组织，展开和表达你对issue的ideas
3）用相关的理由和例子来支持你的ideas
4）控制标准英语写作的元素

你要用几分钟来思考你选择的issue然后在你开始写之前计划你的文章。确保你完全的展开了ideas然后结合的组织他们呢，但是留一点时间来写你所写的并且在你认为需要的时候进行修改。

domudomuUID: 2670967

第二十四页
issue题目选择
在以下的issue中选择一个表述你的观点，运用相关的理由或者例子来支持你的观点
topic1 topic2

第二十五页
例文GRE分析写作2
分析一个arguement
你有三十分钟的时间假话并写一个已提供的argue的批论，用一篇小小的文章。如果写成了其他的argue会得到零分

分析一系列argue中的理由。确保考虑到那个，如果有一些假设成为思考的基础，如果证据是被引用的，那就看他是怎样支持这个结论。

你可以讨论什么类型的证据可以加强反驳这个argue，argument里面的改变颗粒让他更逻辑化，而且增加的额外的信息会帮助你更好的评估这个结论。注意你不是要被要求展示你在学科上的观点。

GRE阅卷者会根据以下条件决定你的分数

1）鉴定并分析argue的重要特征
2）组织，展开，并表达你对argue的批论
3）用相关的理由和例子来支持你的批论
4）控制标准写作英语的元素
在你开始写作之前，你要花几分钟去估计你的argue并计划你的文章。确保充分的展开你的ideas并合理的组织，但是留时间读你的写作并且在你认为需要的地方进行修改。

第二十六页
arguement题目

domudomuUID: 2670967

总算是完成了翻译大务，最后的几页评分标准就不打出来啦，哈哈偷懒偷懒是坏蛋，因为那个真的看过无数遍了呃，接下来要把那三十篇的东东给看完哦

domudomuUID: 2670967

第一篇要看的文 TOPIC: ARGUMENT206 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily Newspaper. "Throughout the country last year, as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth-league softball and soccer（不一定就要禁止体育比赛啊）, over 80,000（未知总人数不好判断哦） of these young players suffered injuries（受伤严重吗. When interviewed for a recent study, youth-league softball players in several major cities（说了是大城市，那parkville不一定有啊） also reported psychological pressure from coaches and parents to win games. Furthermore, education experts say that long practice sessions for these sports take away time that could be used for academic activities. Since the disadvantages apparently outweigh any advantages, we in Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition（还有很多温和的体育项目可以开展啊）for children under nine." WORDS: 384 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-8-1 13:58:06 In this argument, the author concludes that Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine. To support his conclusion, the author points out that over 80,000 of young players suffered injuries throughout the country last year. And he also cites that youth-league softball players reported pressure form coaches and parents in several big cities and these sports take away time for academic activities. However, the argument suffers a few flaws.（这样的开场很多人用，但据说不会的高分诶，不知道呢） To begin with, the author falsely assumes that children under nine in Parkville suffer injuries just like those throughout the country. First, the child in Parkville may have different interests in sports（所以可以取消会受伤的比赛选不受伤的啊, such as basketball. Second, the author fails to provide the number of children who is under nine and suffered injuries throughout the country last year. Perhaps only a few children under nine suffered from injuries. Third, the author fails to prove that the children get injuries because of taking sports rather than other possibilities. All these scenarios, if true, will undermine the author's conclusion. In addition, the author unjustifiably claims that children in Parkvill receive pressure from coaches and parents.（题目中是说在大城市的报告中而不是parkvill啊） The study is interviewed in several big cities, we are not informed whether Parkville is a big city. Even assuming that it is a big city, the author still cannot apply the study to Parkville. There are maybe differences between Parkville and other cities. Perhaps Parkville has stricter regulations to coaches, or perhaps the competition in Parkville is not so serious. Furthermore, it is unwarranted to claim that these sports take away time from academic activities. First, we are not informed how many hours are used for sports and academic activities. Perhaps sports time is far less than the time for academic activities. Second, sports may help to do academic activities better. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is unwise to discontinue organized competition. Last but not least, the author suggests too hastily to discontinue all the competition. Even if some competition is dangerous, some others may be good for children（其实这边说的是挺好的，但如果结合第一意群，那第一意群就显得写的不好而且重复了啊）. Common sense tells me that children need to take sports. The disadvantage of discontinue may outweigh the advantage. To sum up, the author fails to substantiate the conclusion that Parkville should discontinue organized athletic competition for children under nine. The author need further information and reliable study to make the conclusion convincing.（现在的开头结尾都一样啦呵呵，不知该怎么感觉了） 这篇文章感觉一般，字数太少，论据少不够有说服力，讨论的东西不够多有的时候甚至与题目不符合 但是整体文章还是完整的，批判到得东西也是重点的

domudomuUID: 2670967

第二篇要看的文
TOPIC: ARGUMENT131 - The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in Tria Island.

"The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals. Its regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, but fishing is not banned（补了鱼，哺乳动物没东西吃还是会死的啊）. Currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining, a situation blamed on pollution（也有可能是因为捕捞过度）. In contrast, the marine sanctuary on Omni Island has regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omni（十英里之外也有可能会影响啊） and Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. Clearly, the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, （两者皆有可能啊，也可能是同时影响导致的呢）not pollution. Therefore, the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni."（两者的比较不合常理）
WORDS: 314
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-7-31 21:03:35

In this argument, the author concludes that the Tria Island should abandon its regulations and adopt Omni's in order to restore its fish populations and protect all of its marine wildlife. To support his conclusion, the author cites the example of Omni Island which has regulations that ban fishing. However, the argument suffers from a few flaws.（一样的开头，自己现在的初期阶段写作也是这样的，奇怪啊reader改这么多一样的不会吐啊，可又该怎么办啊）

To begin with, the author assumes too hastily that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters should blame on overfishing.
Firstly, there are many other nature factors which would influence the fish population, such as water temperature, spaning season, extreme weather phenomenon and so forth举例还是很多的. Secondly,
the author fails to prove that the banned actions have not happened. If the water is polluted, the fish population will probably decrease.
Besides, the oil may also float from other place. All these sceranios, if true, will undermine the author's conclusion that overfishing should be responsible for decline in fish populations.（这段感觉还是蛮好的，就是后面没读太懂）

In additon, even assuming that overfishing leads to the decline in fish populations, the author falsely concludes that Tria should follow the example of Omni（两者不可以对比）. The author overlooks the differences between the two Islands. There might be disparity in Island weather, water quality, fish sorts and so on. These defferences（错字） will make Omni's regulations unsuccessful in Tria. What's more, the author doesn't prove that the fish caught in Tria is within 10 miles of Tria, which will undermine the conclusion.

Further more, even assuming that the Omni's regulation will success in Tria, the argument still has some flaws. First, the Omni's regulations might not be the best one. There are may be better ones such as stricker ban on dumping. Second, the Omni's regulation cannot guarantee to protect all the marine wildlife. （这边说到了，和上一段是不是有点重复）

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his conclusion that Tria should adopt Omni's regulations. To support his conclusion, the author should provides more information.
开头还是那个开头结尾还是那个结尾，是不是限时了，真的就会写的比较少呢，可能吧，所以我要加速啊

cicialiceUID: 2594855

发现lz从第36楼起引用的都不是这篇题目对应的文章~
明明是issue啊，为什么是那几篇经典的argument的评分文章？
lz翻译的时候不会连文章都不看的吧。。。
说的有点儿尖锐了，不过真的提醒lz仔细看ets给出的范文是很重要的，背过都不过分~

domudomuUID: 2670967

第三篇要看的文
时间果然不够用啊……
用时：35m； 字数：449
------------------
35. The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.


"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study.（报告的准确性） Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods.（有毒可怎么办啊） With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia." （结论太荒唐了）
------------------

正文

In this summary the author concludes that the number of headaches suffered by average citizen of Mentia will continue to decline. To justify this argument, the author show me some evidence that many foods are naturally rich in salicylates(S), which are similar to aspirin, a medicine used to treat headache. Moreover, the author cites a twenty – year study, amid which the average number of headaches is reported declining. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals many logical and statistic problems that will without doubt render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author’s argument relies on a hasty assumption that S is the very factor leading to the decline of the number of headaches. However, no certain proof has been shown to confirm this connection. There is a high possibility that it’s some other chemicals that added in foods curing the headaches, but not S. And it’s also possible that even though S is curing the headaches, the consequence is not apparent enough for a survey to check out.

Even if the connection between the use of S and decline of headache is confirmed, the author fails to show the details of the twenty-year study to prove it representative. First, the number of people who has taken the survey is not given. Perhaps the sample is too small to be considered valid. Furthermore, the situation of these sample people is also unknown. It’s possible that the symptom of the headache of the people is not severe enough, and that it’s some other factors resulting in the recovery of their headache, even that it’s cure all by themselves.

Even if the two factors that will lead to the failure of the argument are both proved, the author still cannot prove that the trend of using S as preservative will continue. It’s totally possible that all the companies tend to give up using S as preservative for some reasons, like recent discovery or governmental restricts. Or perhaps, there will be some other chemicals found to be more efficient than S as preservative, which will without doubt result in the decline of using S.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stand in many facets. Firstly, to strengthen the argument, the author must show me more evidence to prove that it is the S which added as preservative that cure people’s headache, not other chemicals. Secondly, to convince me, the author also have to show more details about the twenty – year study to prove it representative. Finally, the author also have to give adequate evidence to show that the tendency of using S as preservatives will continue. Without ruling out all the other possibilities, the argument will never convince me.
首先这篇文章写的很长了，就挺不容易得了，然后结尾结的很长，总结的较为具体。这篇文章的错误其实是比较难找的，给我的感觉是满篇都是错的但是又具体不到哪里去。很confusing，但是作者已经写的很好的结构

domudomuUID: 2670967

第四篇要看的文

TOPIC: ARGUMENT203 - The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days.（这个平均时间准确吗，根据什么，而且时间短不一定是好的） Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient（服务人员多不代表效果好） than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints（投诉少不代表就是好的啊，也有可能是投诉的渠道问题）about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."
WORDS: 431
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-4-7 9:59:42

提纲：
1，在医院时间长短不能说明治疗质量
2，治愈比率同样不能说明治疗质量
3，医院有更多工作人员不一定能提供更好服务
4，投诉少不能说明服务好


There are several facets are questionable in this argument. At first, the stayed time is not a good indication about the quality of treatment. Secondly, the cure rate can not indicate about the quality about the hospital. Thirdly, more employees for per patient could not ensure a better treatment for the patient. Finally, few complaints were received about the service does not demonstrate all the other people are satisfied with the service. So, the assertion which the author concluded in the argument is unreliable.

To begin with, the author has tried to make us believe that the Saluda hospital (SH) could provide better quality treatment because the average length of a patient's stay and the cure rate there is shorter than Megaville Hospital (MH).Lacking information about what kind of illness the patient have got, the author can not confidently draw any conclusion about the quality about the two hospitals. Maybe the patients who visited to SH have some slight sickness, and people may choose the big hospital like MH to cure some serious disease like cancer, or AIDS, and that kinds of sicknesses are not easy,even possible to heal.

Another question about the argument is that though there are more employees for per patient of SH than MH, the author can not make sure that every patient will be provided a better service. For the simple reason that we don't know the jobs of those employees, there may be some of them are bus drivers or cooks in cafeteria. They can do nothing to help patient restore. Granted that all the jobs the employees worked are helpful to the patients. We don't know whether they are loyal to their occupation. So the author generated the conclusion too hastily.

Finally, the data about complaints about service of SH could not ensure us SH provides better service. Because we don't know, how many patients have been the two hospitals respectively to cure some sicknesses, and what fraction of them has reported a complaint. May be the quantity of the complaints of SH is less than that of MH. But the fraction may be larger. Granted that both the quantity and fraction of the complaints received by SH is less. The author can not convince us that all the other people are satisfied with the service.

In conclusion, this argument can not be taken seriously as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide the detailed information about what kind of illness the patients have, what jobs do the employees worked for, and the exact proportion about the received complaints of all the patients.