- 最后登录
- 2012-8-22
- 在线时间
- 195 小时
- 寄托币
- 823
- 声望
- 44
- 注册时间
- 2005-2-23
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 3
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 848
- UID
- 197049
- 声望
- 44
- 寄托币
- 823
- 注册时间
- 2005-2-23
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 3
|
本帖最后由 prettywraith 于 2009-12-14 19:34 编辑
第四次作业
(1)
限时argument206,
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, over 80,000 of these young players suffered injuries. When interviewed for a recent study, youth-league softball players in several major cities 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 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.文章原话最好改写 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应为from coaches and parents in several big cities and these sports take away time for academic activities. However, the argument suffers a few flaws. 这里用flaws这个词是不是太小了;该段应用原文的句子太多了
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, 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.用的有些词不太准确;第一个例子没有论证充分
In addition, the author unjustifiably claims that children in Parkvill receive pressure from coaches and parents. 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是否合适 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.第二个例子没有说充分
Last but not least, 这个词太敏感了the author suggests too hastily to discontinue all the competition. Even if some competition is dangerous, some others may be good for children. Common sense tells me that children need to take sports. The disadvantage of discontinue may outweigh the advantage.
To sum up, the author fails觉得文中总用fail这个词不是太准确,而且是否有重复过多的问题 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.
先声明一点,这篇文章比自己现在写的限时文章水平要好很多
优点:单词和句法错误较少;结构清晰;逻辑错误找的比较准确;字数也刚刚好
缺点:文中都标出来了,有些词中国学生用的太多,所以尽量少用;有些alternative explanation 说的不够充分,给人一种逻辑上有跳跃的感觉;有些词用的不太准确;另外第一段照搬原文的地方太多,最好改写一下。
(2)
限时argument131,
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. Currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining, a situation blamed on pollution. In contrast, the marine sanctuary on Omni Island has regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omni 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, 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."
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.
To begin with, the author assumes这里不是假设因该是总结吧 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. Secondly,
the author fails to prove that the banned actions have not happened. 句子有错,愿意好像是想说是否怎么样If the water is polluted, the fish population will probably decrease.
Besides, the oil may also float from other place. All these sceranios 因该是scenario吧, if true, will undermine the author's conclusion that overfishing should be responsible for decline in fish populations.
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. 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 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.这句话没说完整
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.
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.
才发现和第一篇是同一个人写的,难怪用词和结构很像,还以为遇到了传说中的模板。
1, 单词拼写错了6-7个明显增多
2, 有几个句子有语法问题,而且没写完整
3, 结论段只是呼应了开头,没有进一步升华,而且如果有一些反讽和幽默的句子会让结尾给你印象更深
(3)
Argument 35 首次限时
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. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. 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."
------------------
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 不要用简写形式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. 主谓不一致the sample如果表一类东西的话谓语应该用复数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.
写了400多字还说时间不够用,牛人啊!
1, 开头结尾段过长,
2, 局式单一,it is 这种句子用的太多
3, 我怎么感觉后面的论证和文章的问题不是太相关,
(4)
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. 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 than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints 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.句子有些啰嗦,第二句可以直接用indicate就行;另外开头列出来的结构最好和后面讨论结构一致
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.这里想要说是不可能治愈吧。
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. 句子有误,加个连词或者变成两个单句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.还是wordy,句子精炼一些,或者补充一些推理的过程。
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.
(5)
TOPIC: ARGUMENT159 - The nation of Claria covers a vast physical area. But despite wide geographic differences, many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity. A recent study of household electric costs in Claria found that families who cooled their houses with fans alone spent more on electricity than did families using air conditioners alone for cooling. However, those households that reported using both fans and air conditioners spent less on electricity than those households that used either fans or air conditioners alone. Thus, the citizens of Claria should follow the study's recommendation and use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity.
WORDS: 431
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-3-17 下午 08:10:53
In this argument, the author recommends both using air conditioners and fans as an effective way of saving money on electricity. In order to justify it, the author cites a survey that different families being diverse in the way of cooling the house spend different money on electricity. However, close scrutiny of the statistic and the line of reasoning reveal that it is not convincing. 看到好多人用close scrutiny;
A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. Lacking of assurance and information about the randomness and relative size of the survey' sample, the author cannot convince me the conclusion of the survey is reliable. As the author mentions, the nation of Claria covers a vast physical area, without enough large sample, so it is entirely possible that the survey is not representative of the real situation of Claria. Moreover different place will 应该去掉will have different temperature and the price of electricity, without comprehensive consideration these factors, I strongly doubt the reliability of the survey. 缺少连词或者修改标点符号The dubious survey undermines the follow conclusions which rely on it.
Secondly, the author asserts different way of cooling the house causes the decrease of electricity consuming just because they happen together. Obviously, the evidence for the casual relationship is too vague to believe. Furthermore, to satisfy the same requirement, common sense informs us air condition costs more electricity than fans. Thus, there must be other reasons causing the decrease of the electric consumption. The most reasonable one is that the expense for air condition is so money-consuming that the citizens would like to tolerate the hot weather rather than pay for it.最后这种解释仍无法说明为什么空调风扇一起用比单独用风扇或空调要省电,只是说有些可能为了节约费用忍受天热带来的不便而不去开空调。
Even though the author can substantiate foregoing assumption and assertion, I still cannot accept his/her recommendation because the author overlooks other factors contributes to the amounts of electricity. As we know, for a family, facilities of cooling the house take little part of electricity. Computer, lights, television, fridge and so forth cost more electricity. Thus it is possible that even though the method of saving electricity recommended by the author works, it makes little contribution to the total electricity consuming so that we cannot see the change on
spending money. Furthermore, if the electric consumptions of other factors increase, it will not save the money, strongly contradicting to the conclusion of the author. It指代不明,这句话需要修改
To sum up, the recommendation suffers from statistic and logic flaws causing that it is not warranted. In order to strengthen it, the author should provide the compelling evidence to prove the reliability of the survey and the casual relationship between the way of cooling their house and decrease of electric consumption. Additionally, the author should also provide appealing evidence to prove the total electric consumption will decrease.
除了前面提到几个问题,这篇文章整体上结构和逻辑都还是可以的。 |
|