1006G 备考日记 by ieyangj08——行胜于言

ieyangj08UID：2743219

今天复习了三个单元的语法，翻译了一部分的AWintro。AWintro部分的解题样例给我的收获最多，此外还有一些普及性的AW知识也非常有用。大病初愈，今天就到此为止吧，明天继续，加油加油！

ieyangj08UID：2743219

范文与点评

6分答卷  *所有答卷均按原文引用，包括错误、拼写等

In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement, both positive and negative effects among persons in Western society call for a balance in which there are both specialists and generalists.

Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase):"I can only research what I do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focussed individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb to the moon." This illustrates the point that our societies level of knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the information available to us.

Simply put, without specialists, our society would find itself bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was fine for early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area.

On the other hand, Over specialization means narrow focii in which people can lose the larger picture.No one can hope to understand the human body by only inspecting one's own toe-nails. What we learn from a narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if we inspect only our toe-nails, we may conclude that the whole body is hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various discovieries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a picture.

Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral or universall issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the environment. With specialization, each person focusses on their research and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the wholisitc view of our global existence in which true advancement may mean stifling individual specialists for the greater good of all.

Finally, over-specialization in a people's daily lives and jobs has meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must conciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only does this make for narrowly focussed and generally pooprly-educated individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal dissatisfaction.

Without generalists, society becomes inward-looking and eventually inefficient. Without a society that recongnizes the impotance of braod-mindedness and fora for sharing generalities, individuals become isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field and know what the stakes are.

阅卷人评语——6分

    这是一篇非常优秀的Issue分析——有见底、理由充分、用语精确。首段提出作者的立场，并且引出了作者即将展开论述的情境："In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement . . . ."
    论证本身有两部分。第一部分给出了关于专才的有说服力的例子，主要在医学领域。第二部分给出了同样有说服力、组织较好的例子来反驳过分专业化，其主要原因为以下三点：
    1、 逻辑方面（受训单一的专家们常不能着眼全局）
    2、 道德方面（通才们常常能够理解获得‘大局的利益’需要什么）
    3、 个人方面（过早地专门化/类别化可能带来心理伤害）
    随后的专家确证(quotation from a prominent medical researcher)和生动的比喻(to inspect only one's toenails is to ignore the whole body)加强了论证的严谨性。
    这篇文章优秀的原因并不只于它的推理。文章用语精确而形象("bogged down in a Sargasso sea of information overload," "a pile of useless discoveries," and "specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts, while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field")。 过渡性短语和观点一直指引读者理清文章思维，继续阅读。这是一篇针对该话题的非常优秀的答卷。

5分答卷

Specialists are not overrated today. More generalists may be needed, but not to overshadow the specialists. Generalists can provide a great deal of information on many topics of interest with a broad range of ideas. People who look at the overall view of things can help with some of the large problems our society faces today. But specialists are necessary to gain a better understanding of more in depth methods to solve problems or fixing things.

One good example of why specialists are not overrated is in the medical field. Doctors are necessary for people to live healthy lives. When a person is sick, he may go to a general practitioner to find out the cause of his problems. Usually, this kind of "generalized" doctor can help most ailments with simple and effective treatments. Sometimes, though, a sickness may go beyond a family doctor's knowledge or the prescribed treatments don't work the way they should. When a sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed as a disease that requires more care than a family doctor can provide, he may be referred to a specialist. For instance, a person with constant breathing problems that require hospitalization may be suggested to visit an asthma specialist. Since a family doctor has a great deal of knowledge of medicine, he can decide when his methods are not effective and the patient needs to see someone who knows more about the specific problem; someone who knows how it begins, progresses, and specified treatments. This is an excellent example of how a generalied person may not be equipped enough to handle something as well as a specialized one can.

Another example of a specialist who is needed instead of a generalist involves teaching. In grammar school, children learn all the basic principles of reading, writing, and arithematic. But as children get older and progress in school, they gain a better understanding of the language and mathematical processes. As the years in school increase, they need to learn more and more specifics and details about various subjects. They start out by learning basic math concepts such as addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. A few years later, they are ready to begin algebraic concepts, geometry, and calculus. They are also ready to learn more advanced vocabulary, the principles of how all life is composed and how it functions. One teacher or professor can not provide as much in depth discussion on all of these topics as well as one who has learned the specifics and studied mainly to know everything that is currently known about one of these subjects. Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects and finding out new facts on the old ones.

These are only two examples of why specialists are not highly overrated and more generalists are not necessary to the point of overshadowing them. Generalists are needed to give the public a broad understanding of some things. But , specialists are important to help maintain the status, health, and safety of our society. Specialists are very necessary.

阅卷人评语——5分

    通过讨论对通才和专长的需求，作者展示了一篇对题目复杂性发展较好的文章。
    这篇文章基于两个精心挑选的详细事例。第一个（第二段）首先讨论了医学通才（一般医务工作者）和专才的必要性，随后转入一个例子中的例子（呼吸问题和对哮喘专家的必要性）。下一段的事例也具备这种从一般到具体的延伸特点。此处，讨论集中在教育领域，从小学到高中，从初等运算到微积分。
    使用恰当的连接词："but," "usually," and "for instance," 增添了行文的流畅性。文章以重述作者主题而结尾。
    虽然作者较好地处理了语言和语法，几处清晰度方面的缺陷让这篇论证有力的文章低于6分。问题包括代词缺少指代("When a sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed, . . . he may be referred to a specialist")、一个并列结构错误("how it begins, progresses and specified treatments")、语法粗糙用语不精确("Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects.") 语法错误

4分答卷

Specialists are just what their name says: people who specialize in one part of a very general scheme of things. A person can't know everything there is to know about everything. This is why specialists are helpful. You can take one general concept and divide it up three ways and have three fully developed different concepts instead of one general concept that no one really knows about. Isn't it better to really know something well, than to know everything half-way.

Take a special ed teacher compared to a general ed teacher. The general ed teacher knows how to deal with most students. She knows how to teach a subject to a student that is on a normal level. But what would happen to the child in the back of the room with dyslexia? She would be so lost in that general ed classroom that she would not only not learn, but be frustrated and quite possibly, have low self-esteem and hate school. If there is a special ed teacher there who specializes in children with learning disabilities, she can teach the general ed teacher how to cope with this student as well as modify the curriculum so that the student can learn along with the others. The special ed teacher can also take that child for a few hours each day and work with her on her reading difficulty one-on-one, which a general ed teacher never would have time to do.

A general ed teacher can't know what a special ed teacher knows and a special ed teacher can't know what a general ed teacher knows. But the two of them working together and specializing in their own things can really get a lot more accomplished. The special ed teacher is also trained to work on the child's self-esteem, which has a big part in how successful this child will be. Every child in the United States of America has the right to an equal education. How can a child with a learning disability receive the same equal education as a general ed student if there was no specialist there to help both teacher and child?

Another thing to consider is how a committee is supposed to work together. Each person has a special task to accomplish and when these people all come together, with their tasks finished, every aspect of the community's work is completely covered. Nothing is left undone. In this case there are many different specialists to meet the general goal of the committee.

When you take into account that a specialist contributes only a small part of the generalist aspect, it seems ridiculous to say that specialists are overrated. The generalists looks to the specialists any time they need help or clarification on their broad aspect. Specialists and generalists are part of the same system, so if a specialist is overrated, then so is a generalist.

阅卷人评语——4分

    这篇文章对题目进行了足够的分析。首段目的模糊的定义“专才”后，作者提出了一个切题的事例（the special education teacher）来表明专才的重要性。该例子引领全文，为整体的4分做出了贡献。
    第二个关于委员会工作的例子稍欠说服力。然而，它似乎有助于表明作者关于“通才”的定义，即所有专才对某一主题的知识的集合。
    虽然作者关于专才与通才的关系的见解与众不同，但它在文中被表达得很清楚。然而，作者并没有将这些观点阐述到一个足够的深度，或者有足够的逻辑控制，来获得高于4分的分数。
    文章大体没有错误。虽然语句有时不精确、冗长，但基本没有句型、语法和使用错误。整体而言，这篇文章表现了英语写作要素的足够掌握。

3分答卷

To quote the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none," would be my position on the statement. I feel specialists in all areas of knowledge lead to a higher standard of living for everyone. Specializing in different areas allows us to use each others talents to the highest level and maximize potential. As an example, if a person required brain surgery, would they rather have a brain surgeon or a general practitioner doing the work? Clearly a specialist would do the better job and give the patient a chance at a better life.

A university education starts by laying the groundwork for general knowledge but then narrows down to a specific field. General knowledge and a broad prospective are important, but if there was no focus on specific areas, our overall knowledge as a population would be seriously lessened.

Another example of specialists not being overated would be international trade. Not every nation can provide for themselves. They need to get products and ideas from other parts of the world because they are better at providing them. This allows for a growing economy if two different nations can provide each other with two different products. If one country can produce oranges better than another, it should trade the oranges for the fish that it can not produce. If generalizing was the normal thing to do and both countries tried to produce all kinds of products, the countries would probably survive, but not have the standard of living they presently have.

阅卷人评语——3分

      作者的立场很明确：专才既重要也必要。但是，作者没有用充分的理由和逻辑例子来支持这个立场。
      第一段提出了一个恰当的脑外科医生和全科医师的例子。但是，第二段中越来越狭窄的大学教育的例子只有两句话，严重缺乏展开。这对巩固作者的立场几乎没有帮助。
      第三段提出了另一个文中展开最好的例子。不幸的是，这个例子逻辑上不够清晰。作者试图辩论说“专才”国家（一个产桔子较好的国家）优于“通才”国家（一个桔子和其他产品都生产得很好的国家）。作者告诉我们，这个通才国家劣于其他国家。这个结论没有从作者的辩论中逻辑地体现出来，而且似乎同日常现实不符。
      虽然文章整体用语不够精确，但是作者的意思并不模糊。得到3分的主要原因是缺乏足够的展开和例子的不正确使用。

2分答卷

In the situation of health I feel that specialists are very important. For example if a person has heart problems, choose a heart specialist over a genral medicine Dr. However if a person is having a wide range of syptoms, perhaps choose a Dr. with a wide range of experience might be more helpful.

It also depends on the type of problem you are having. For example I would not suggest taking a troubled child to a theorpist who specializes in marriage problems. In some cases have a specialists helps to insure that you are getting the best possibly treatment. On the other hand dealing with a person who has a wide range of experience may be able to find different ways of dealing with a particular problem.

Since the quotation did not state exactely what type of specialist we are dealing with it is also hard to determine the importance of having a specialist is. For example the could be health or problems with a car, or basically anything else. I feel that this information should not have been left out. I guess the bottom line is that I feel sometimes a specialist is very important.

阅卷人评语——2分
    这是一篇对论题有严重错误的分析。答卷中的辩论倾向于专才，但是理由和例子都不够有说服力。不要带“一个生病的孩子去看婚姻问题的专家”的例子不仅过分简单而且不切题，因为这两个专家之间的区别不同于通才和专才的区别。
    句子的结构和用语很糟，以至于有时很难理解文章。然而，这不是一篇一分文章：作者在文中表明了立场，使用了非常弱的分析来阐释了立场，并清晰地传递了一些思想。

1分答卷

I disagree with the statement about specialists, we need specialists who take individual areas and specialize. A generalists can pinpoint a problem. He or she cannot determine the magnitude of the problem. A specialist can find the root of the problem. When he or she has years working in that specific field. For example, when i got sick i went to a doctor. He did blood work, x-ray, talk to me, ect. He prescribed me a medicine. I got worst. So i decided to go another doctor. Now, i am doing great. A specialist knows the facts right away. Otherwise, it will take longer or not at all.

阅卷人评语——1分

     这篇答卷根本没有讨论题目。
     第一句话声明了作者对支持专才的立场，但是随后没有相应的辩论。一些观点似乎矛盾（e.g., "generalists can pinpoint a problem"）并且例子令人费解。如果文章解释说第一个（不成功的）医生是一个通才，而第二个（成功的）医生是一个专才，这个例子就会是有助于论述的。然而，文中例子是不清晰甚至有误导性的。总结性陈述仅仅增添了读者的困惑。
     因为大多数句子都很短且突兀，所以他们试图传递的思想也是突兀的。作者需要提供过渡性的词汇和观点，从而提高这篇文章的逻辑一致性。而且基本错误和语法错误很常见，但是使这篇文章得到1分的主要原因是缺少条理清楚的论证。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

昨晚开始觉得头晕、脑供血不足、容易晕倒，一直持续到现在，作业没有进展，心理好着急啊

ieyangj08UID：2743219

多病的一周，为自己加油！

ieyangj08UID：2743219

分析一篇Argument任务

理解Argument任务

    “分析一篇Argument”任务评估你理解、分析和评价Argument的能力，以及在写作中清晰表达你的分析的能力。这个任务包含一篇简要的文章，文中作者就某些事件或行动提出某些理由和证据支持他的陈述。你的任务是通过批判性地检查推理路线和论据使用，讨论作者案例的逻辑合理性。这要求你认真地阅读短文。你可能需要多读几遍，并就你想展开的一些点做些简要的笔记。阅读题目时，你需要特别注意：
    1、 题目提供了什么证据、支持和证明？
    2、 题目给出了哪些陈述、宣称和结论？
    3、 有哪些假设可能是未经检验或证明的？
    4、 有哪些未经言明但由作者的看法可推得的结论？
    此外，你还必须考虑论证的结构——整合这些元素从而形成一条推理链的方式，即你应该认识思考过程中分离的、有时候暗含的步骤，考虑这些思考步骤之间的衔接是否符合逻辑。在这个过程中，留意那些表明作者即将做出逻辑衔接的连接性词汇和短语(e.g., however, thus, therefore, evidently, hence, in conclusion)。
     做好Argument任务的一个重要原则是记清你不需要做的事情。你不需要讨论论题的陈述是否正确或精确；相反，你需要讨论从题目中得出的结论和推论是否有效。你不需要表明是否同意题给观点的立场；但是你需要评论支持题目中立场的思考。你不需要表明自己对题目中问题的看法（如同Issue任务中一样）；但你需要评估另一个作家论证的逻辑完整性，以此来表明自己的批判性思考、阅读理解、分析写作技巧等大学教师们认为研究生阶段重要的能力。
     “分析一篇Argument”主要是一个要求书面答卷的批判性思考任务。最终，答卷中展示出的分析技巧在评分时占重要的比例。

理解写作背景：目的与读者

    这个任务的目的是考察你有见底地分析他人论证，并在书写中有效地将你的评论表达给学术读者的能力。你的读者包括大学与学院的教职工，他们都经过了GRE阅卷人培训，并依据论证分析任务的评分指南（见28页）给分。
    为了更清楚地了解阅卷人对实际答卷的评分标准，你应该复习已评分的样卷和阅卷人评点。样卷，尤其是5分和6分样卷，将向你展示很多组织和阐释一个有见地评论的成功策略。你还将会看到很多有效使用语言的例子。阅卷人的评论讨论了分析写作的具体方面，如观点一致性、展开和支持、组织、句法多样性，以及使用语言的能力等方面。评论在指出有效论证和有见地一面的同时，也将指出影响答卷整体有效性的一面。

准备Argument任务

    由于该任务意在考察你在多年学习过程中学到的分析写作和信息推理技巧，它并不需要任何特别的课程，也不存在经过特殊训练而占优势的考生。你可能会发现许多大学作文课本提及的说服性写作建议很有用，但这些对Argument写作来说仍然太过细化或专业。你不需要知道分析的方法或术语。比如，一道题目中一名小学校长称新操场设备提高了学生出勤率，因为自从建立以来，缺课率下降了。你不需要知道校长犯了错误因果谬论，你仅需要知道提升出勤率还有其他的解释，提供一些常识性的解释，或者建议还需要些什么才能证实结论。例如，缺课率下降可能由于天气转好。为证明校长结论有效，这些因素需要被排除。
虽然你不需要知道具体的分析技能和术语，你应该熟悉Argument任务的方向和一些关键概念，包括：
1、 其他解释——可能引发题给事件的另一个有竞争性的理由；由于它也可以解释观察到的现象，所以将削弱或限制原有的理由；
2、 分析——将某事（如一篇Argument）分解成各个组成成分的过程，以理解它们之间是如何协作组成整体的；也是对该过程结果的描述（常以书面形式）；
3、 论证——一个或一系列有理由或论据支撑的主张；表明某事正确或错误的推理脉络；
4、 假设——为了维持某一立场而坚持的观念，通常未经陈述或验证；一些被认为理所当然的东西，但只有当它正确时，结论才可能正确；
5、 结论——推理线的终点，若推理正确则结论有理；结果陈述；
6、 反例——一个真实或虚构的例子，反驳或不支持Argument中的观点。
    一条备考论证分析任务的很好途径就是练习已公布的题库。没有一种对任何人而言都最好的练习方法。 有些人喜欢起先无视30分钟的时间限制。如果你这么做，花所有你需要的时间分析题目。无论你采用什么方法，都应该：
    1、 仔细阅读题目——可能需要阅读多遍；
    2、 尽可能多地找出主张、结论及隐含假设；
    3、 尽可能多地想出其他解释和反例；
    4、 想想哪些其他的证据可以支持或削弱该陈述；
    5、 问问自己，更改Argument的哪些部分能让推理更合理。
    简要记下对上述问题的思考。尽可能地延伸你的思考，最后回顾和整理你的笔记（或许将它们编号）。随后依次展开你的点，从而写出一篇评论。即使你不写完全文，分析几个题目、写写提纲也是很有帮助的。更加熟练和自信后，你该试着在30分钟内完成全文，以培养真实考试中的时间感。例如，你可能不想透彻地讨论一点，或提供很多相同的例子，以至于占用其他主要论点的时间。
      向教授批判性思维和写作的老师求教，或与同学就相同话题讨论、参照评分指南批改作文都将有所裨益。不要过分注意给出正确的分数，而是找出与评分标准的差距和提高的方法。

如何解释题目中的数字、比例和统计数据

    有些论证中，为了支持结论，会给出一些数字、比例和统计数据。比如，一道题目中可能宣称，某社区活动今年没有去年受欢迎，因为去年有150个人参加，今年只有100个，减少了33%。记住你不是被要求去做关于数字、百分比或统计的数学任务。相反，你应该评估这些用以支撑结论的证据。上述例子中，结论是一项社区活动不受欢迎了。你应该问问自己：100个人和150个人之间的差别能够支持这个结论吗？记住，在这种情况下还有其他可能的解释；比如，今年的天气更加糟糕，今年的社区活动开展时间可能不合适，今年的活动花费可能增多了，或者今年同时还有别的受欢迎活动在举行。每一个理由都能让今年社区活动的参与率下降，从而削弱“社区活动不受欢迎”的结论。同样的，百分比可能支持或削弱一个结论，依赖于百分比所代表的实际数字。考虑下述观点：一个学校戏剧社应该得到更多资金，因为它的成员增加了100%。如果原本就有100个人，现在有200人了，那么这100%增长率可谓十分显著。如果原先只有5个人，现在变10个，翻一番也没什么了不起。记住，Argument题目中的任何数字、比例和统计都只作为支持结论的论据，你应该经常考虑它们是否真能支持结论。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

答卷格式

    只要你认为能够有效表达你对Argument的分析，你可以以任何方式组织和展开你的评论。答卷可以运用（但不一定非要用）英语作文或高级写作课上学到的写作技巧。GRE阅卷人不会倾向于一种具体的展开策略或写作风格。事实上，他们接受GRE阅卷人训练时，已经读了几百篇Argument答卷，虽然这些答卷在内容和形式上有所不同，但都表现出相近水平的思辨与说服性写作能力。比如，一些6分答卷开头简单总结Argument，然后详细地陈述或展开评论的主要观点。同是6分级别，一篇答卷可能首先简单归纳作者的立场，然后明确指出各批判点。阅卷人知道在答卷中分析和展开多个点，或攻击Argument中的一个主要缺陷并在答卷中充分展开，都可以得到高分。阅读样例话题答卷，特别是5分与6分答卷，学习作者是如何成功地展开并组织他们的批判的。
    你应考虑如何提高整体论证的有效性，从而选择论证形式和组织全文。就是说，你可以按照自己的标准使用较多或较少的段落。比如，当你的讨论转向新的分析时，可以构建一个新的段落。你可以依据题目自身的布局展开自己的评论，即逐句地讨论题目。或者首先挑明关键性的存疑假设，随后讨论推理过程中的相关漏洞。同样的，若有利于展示你的重要批判点或引出讨论，你可以采用一些例子（不过得记住，Argument考核的不是你举例的能力，而是批判思维和分析写作的能力）。答卷用什么形式不重要，如何有见解地分析论证、如何清晰地向学术读者们传递自己的分析结果才重要。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Argument题目举例

    关于溜冰事故后赴急诊室人群的医院统计数据表明，人们需要保护性更强的装备。在这些人群中，那些在街道或停车场出事的人里有75%都没有穿戴任何防护服（头盔、护膝等）或任何反光物件（可夹式小灯、发光腕表等）。显然，这些数据表明若我们投资高质量的防护和反光装备，溜冰者在事故中受重伤的危险将大大降低。

本题策略
   
本题引用了一所具体医院的统计数据以支持一般结论“投资高质量的防护和反光装备”能减少溜冰者在事故中严重受伤的风险。
      展开分析时，你应该问问自己是否医院数据能真正的支持这个结论。你可以问自己以下问题：
1、 所有的溜冰者中，在溜冰事故后赴急诊室的人占多大比例？
2、 那些在溜冰事故后赴急诊室的人能代表一般的溜冰者吗？
3、 是否有因溜冰事故受伤但没去急诊室的人？
4、  那些去急诊室的溜冰者伤得重吗？
5、  那25%穿了防护服的溜冰者伤得跟75%没穿的人一样重吗？
6、  对溜冰者而言，是否街道和停车场本身就比较危险？
7、  中等质量的防护服和装备与高质量的相比，在减轻溜冰伤害方面是不是一样有效？
8、  除了防护服和装备外，是不是还有其他的因素与溜冰中受伤联系更密切，如天气、能见度、溜冰技巧等？
    考虑类似问题的可能答案会帮助你找到假设、其他理由和薄弱环节，这些你都可以在评论中展开。

范文与点评

6分答卷 *所有答卷均按原文引用，包括错误、拼写等

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 in the 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.

阅卷人评语——6分

    这篇优秀的答卷展示了作者见解深刻的分析能力。引言部分首先指出题目的错误推理可能导致". . . inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear,"，随后全面地审查了题目中的主要 错误。作者特别指出了削弱论证的几点：
1、  防护性和保护性装备是不同的；
2、  穿防护服的溜冰者不容易出事，因为他们天生更加负责和谨慎；
3、  统计数据没有区分受伤的严重程度；
4、  防护服不一定要质量很好才有用。
    论证流畅、结构合理，每个论点都得到了彻底合理地展开。此外，作者的文字简练、几乎没有错误。句式复杂多变，选词精准恰当。
    总之，这篇答卷展示了评分指南中6分级别的高水准。即使作者的文采略差或提供更少的原因来反驳题目，本文同样可以得到6分。

5分答卷

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.

阅卷人评语——5分

    这篇强有力的答卷较好地评论了题目，指出它“表明了一种可能的关系”，然而它的结论“是不成熟的”。答卷中提出了三个中心问题，它们的答案可能削弱题给论证的合理性：

1、 整个溜冰群体的特征是什么？
2、 在预防或减轻溜冰伤害方面，防护服和反光装备有什么用？
3、 受伤的类型是什么，以及它们的原因？
    作者从不同方面讨论了上述问题的答案，它们增强或削弱了论证。本文的分析与批评尚未达到6分所要求的深刻程度，但其组织结构清晰、语言使用较好，以及详实的展开都确保了这篇文章的分数足以超过4分。

4分答卷

Although the argument stated above discusses the importance of safety equipment as significant part of avoiding injury, the statistics quoted are vague and inconclusive.  Simply because 75 percent of the people involved in roller-skating accidents are not wearing the stated equipment does not automatically implicate he 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, warm-up 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.

阅卷人评语——4分

    这篇合格的答卷攻击题目的含糊和非决定性的统计。答卷指出和评论了由于错误使用题目中的统计而得出的不合逻辑的推理。
1.  题目自动将不使用防护装备归为引起受伤的原因；
2.  “受伤事件”可能指较小的伤害；
3.  受伤可能来自其他原因——夜间轮滑，训练不够或热身不充分，没有认识到自身的生理限制。
    作者充分地抓住了题目的弱点。思路清晰连贯，但答卷缺少过渡性词汇。论证展开也仅仅刚够。
    对语言的掌控较好。作者能清晰地表达以及遵守英语书写的习惯。然而，综合而言这篇4分答卷缺少5分所要求的充分展开。

3分答卷

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.

阅卷人评语——3分

      这篇较好但有限的答卷前半部分仅仅描述了题目。第二部分指出了题目中的两个假设：
1.   购买保护器具的人就会使用它们；
2.   高质量的器具比其他器具更有用。
      这些要点能构建一些分析，从而得到3分。但是，没有一个分析点被足够地阐释以至于可以得到4分。

2分答卷

To reduce the accidents from roller skating we should consider about it causes and effects concurrently to find the best solution.  Basically the roller-skating players are children, they had less experiences to protect themselves from any kind of dangerous.  Therefore, it should be a responsible of adult to take care them.  Adult should recommend their child to wear any protective clothing, set the rules and look after them while they are playing.

In the past roller-skating is limited in the skate yard but when it became popular people normally play it on the street way) Therefore the number of accidents from roller-skating is increased.  The skate manufacturer should have a responsibility in producing a protective clothing.  They should promote and sell them together with skates.  The government or state should set the regulation of playing skate on the street way like they did with the bicycle.

To prevent this kind of accident is the best solution but it needs a coorperation among us to have a concious
mind to beware and realize its dangerous.

阅卷人评语——2分

    这篇有严重错误的答卷建议成年人和轮滑制造商保证儿童穿戴保护性装备，而非评论题目。 本质上，作者无异议地接受了题目中的论证。
    答卷在句子结构和语法使用上有较多严重的错误。词汇选择、动词时态、主谓一致性，标点等方面的错误数量较多，以至于影响理解，比如". . . it needs a cooperation among us to have a concious mind to beware and realize its dangerous."
    这篇文章得到2分是因为它严重的语言缺陷以及没有基于逻辑分析而构建一个评论。

1分答卷

the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reflecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident may happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy and money for thetreatment.  the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reflecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident may happen,also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy and money for the treatment.  the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reflecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident may happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy and money for the treatment.

阅卷人评语——1分

这篇严重缺陷的答卷无异议的接受了题目中的推理："the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident." 然而，没有证据表明作者可以理解或者分析题目；除了一些额外的词语，答卷仅仅复制了题目。这篇两句话的答卷被逐字地重复了多次。语言和使用同样有问题。作者在题目中添加进的少数词语，导致句子不连贯。总之，这篇文章符合评分指南中所有得1分的标准。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

是说Argument143吗？欢迎批评指正，先多谢了 67# 天使的泪

ieyangj08UID：2743219

GRE评分指南：观点陈述

6分
    6分答卷应对话题的复杂性展开说服力强、表达清晰的分析，同时有技巧地传递思想。
    这类典型答卷应当：
1、 表现出对话题见解深刻的观点；
2、 用有力的理由和/或有说服性的例子阐释观点；
3、 分析重点突出、组织优秀，按逻辑连接观点；
4、 流利、精确地表达观点，表意准确，句式多样；
5、 展示出熟练运用标准书面英文（即，语法、用法、组织结构）的能力，但可以有较少错误。

5分
    5分答卷应对话题的复杂性展开基本有深度、阐释较好的分析，同时清晰地传递思想。
    6分跟5分的标准里面，语言方面的要求是完全一样的（4.5点），区分度主要在观点和逻辑。
    这类典型答卷应当：
1、 展现出对话题较好考虑过的观点；
2、 用逻辑合理的理由和/或较好挑选的例子阐释观点；
3、 有重点，大体上组织较好，恰当地衔接观点；
4、 清楚、较好地表达观点，用词合适，句式多样；
5、 展示出熟练运用标准书面英文的能力，但可以有较少错误。

4分
    4分答卷应展示可以对话题进行分析的能力，同时足够地传递思想。
    这类典型答卷应当：
1、 展示对话题清晰的立场；
2、 用相关理由和/或例证阐释立场；
3、 有所侧重，结构完整；
4、 合理清楚地表达观点；
5、 基本上表现掌握书面英文写作的能力，但可以有一些错误。

3分
    3分答卷展现出分析话题和传递思想的一些能力，但有明显错误。
    这类典型答卷包括一个或多个如下特点：
1、 对话题立场进行阐释的能力模糊或有限；
2、 使用相关原因或例子的能力较差；
3、 重点模糊且/或组织不当；
4、 在语言和句子结构上有问题，使得缺乏清晰度；
5、 在语法、用法或组织结构上有少量的重大错误或多个小错误，以至于影响理解。

2分
    2分答卷表现出分析性写作方面的严重弱点。
    这类典型答卷包含一个或多个如下特点：
1、 对话题立场的展开不清楚或非常有限；
2、 给出（如果确实有的话）较少的相关理由或例子；
3、 毫无重点且/或结构混乱；
4、 语言运用和句子结构方面有严重问题，频繁地影响理解；
5、 语法、用法或组织方面有严重错误，常常模糊文意。

1分
    1分答卷表现了分析性写作方面的重大缺陷。
    这类典型答卷包含一个或多个如下特点：
1、 极少或没有证据表明作者能够理解和分析该话题；
2、 极少或没有证据表明作者能够发展和组织答卷；
3、 语言和句子方面有极大问题，持续影响文意；
4、 语法、用法或组织方面有分布广泛的错误，文意难以连贯。

0分
    离题、用非英语写作、仅仅复制题目、只包含键盘随意敲击的词汇、无法阅读、空白或非语言。

NS
    空白。

GRE评分指南：论证分析

6分
    6分答卷展示出说服强、表达优秀的批判论证，同时有技巧地传递思想。
    这类典型答卷应当：
1、 清晰地辨识题给论证的主要特征，并很有见底地对其分析；
2、 令人信服地展开论点，逻辑合理地组织结构，用清晰的连接衔接各部分；
3、 有效地支持批判的主要观点；
4、 展现出对语言的控制，包括用词恰当，句式多样；
5、 展示出熟练运用标准书面英文（即，语法、用法、组织结构）的能力，但可以有较少错误。

5分
    5分答卷展示基本有深度、阐释较好的论证分析，同时清晰地传递思想。
    这类典型答卷应当：
1、 清晰地辨识题给论证的重要特点，对其做出较有见解的分析；
2、 清晰地展开论点，逻辑合理地组织结构，用恰当的连接衔接各部分；
3、 合理地支持批判的主论点；
4、 展现出对语言的控制，包括选词恰当，句式多样；
5、 展示出熟练运用标准书面英文的能力，但可以有较少错误。

4分
    4分答卷展示可以评析论证的能力，同时足够地传递思想。
    这类典型答卷应当：
1、 识别并分析论证的主要特征；
2、 较满意地发展和组织观点，但可能没有使用连接词；
3、 支持批判的主论点；
4、 合理清晰地传递观点时，表现出对语言的足够控制；
5、 基本上表现掌握书面英文写作的能力，但可以有一些错误。

3分
    3分答卷展示评析论证和传递思想方面的一些能力，但有明显错误。
    这类典型答卷包括一个或多个如下特点：
1、 没有识别或分析论证的主要特征，虽然给出了一些对论证的分析；
2、 主要分析较偏或无关的东西，或者说理较差；
3、 逻辑发展和观点组织能力有限；
4、 为评论的观点提供的支持不相关或基本无用；
5.   表达观点时缺乏清晰；
6、 在语法、用法或组织结构上有少量的重大错误或多个小错误，以至于影响理解。

2分
    2分答卷表现出论证分析方面的严重弱点。
    这类典型答卷包含一个或多个如下特点：
1.  没有表现出基于逻辑分析的评论，但可能提出作者自己对话题的观点；
2.  没有展开观点，组织混乱，或缺乏逻辑；
3.  提供极少（如果有）相关或有理的支持；
4.  语言运用和句子结构方面有严重问题，频繁地影响理解；
5.  语法、用法或组织方面有严重错误，常常模糊文意。

1分
    1分答卷表现了分析和写作两方面的重大缺陷。
    这类典型答卷包含一个或多个如下特点：
1. 极少或没有证据表明作者能够理解和分析论证；
2. 极少或没有证据表明作者能够发展和组织答卷；
3.  语言和句子方面有极大问题，持续影响文意；
4. 语法、用法或组织方面有分布广泛的错误，文意难以连贯。

0分
     离题、用非英语写作、仅仅复制题目、只包含键盘随意敲击的词汇、无法阅读、空白或非语言。

NS
    空白。

分数等级描述

    虽然GRE分析写作部分包括两个独立的分析性写作任务，但只报一个组合分数，因为它比只给一个任务分数更加合理。两部分任务得分的平均值作为报告分数，该分值范围为0分至6分，增减幅度为0.5分。
    以下针对各分数等级的描述反映分析写作部分的整体质量，包括观点陈述与论证分析。因为该考试衡量的是“分析性写作”，批判性思维的技巧（推理、整合论据展开观点、传递复杂观点的能力）比作者掌握的语法和文法等更重要。

6分-5.5分

    保持对复杂观点进行有见底、有深度的分析；采用逻辑上支持力强的理由和/或非常有说服力的例子发展、支持文章主旨；重点突出，组织结构优秀；娴熟地使用句型多样、词汇精确等技巧有效地传递思想；展示出对句子结构和语言运用的纯熟掌握，

5分-4.5分

    对复杂观点给出了较有深度的分析；采用逻辑完备的理由和/或选择恰当的例子展开、支持主要观点；大体上重点突出、组织结构优秀；使用多样化的句式和丰富的词汇，清晰地传达文意；展示出对句子结构和语言使用的较好控制，可以有较少的错误但不影响文意。

4分-3.5分

    展示分析复杂观点的能力；用相关理由和/或例子展开并支持主要观点；结构组织合理；清晰合理地传达文意；表现出令人满意的对句子结构好语言使用的掌握能力，有一些错误影响清晰度。

3分-2.5分

    表现了分析写作方面的一些能力，虽然文章在下列至少一点上有缺陷：分析或发展有限；组织较差；较差地控制句子结构和语言使用，常出现因错误而导致的文意模糊或不够清晰。

2分-1.5分

    在分析性写作方面表现出严重不足。严重缺乏分析和发展；缺少组织结构；句子结构和语言用法常犯大错，影响理解。

1分-0.5分

    在分析性写作方面表现出致命缺陷。文章至少在以下一个方面有严重缺陷： 内容极度混乱或几乎与题目无关；极少或没有发展；广泛遍布的严重错误致使文意不连贯。

0分

    无法评定该考生的分析性写作能力，因为答卷没有着眼于任何布置的内容，仅仅尝试复制题目，用非英语写作，或无法识别理解。

NS

    空白。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

第三次作业至此结束，由于上周生病，比计划慢了几天。论证有力、表达优良是对两篇文章的统一要求，都需要用有力的理由和较好的例子来支撑论点，都需要将论点充分展开。怎样展开论点的能力需要关注和学习。此外，Issue还需要对话题的复杂性进行探讨。Argument需要验证潜在的假设和其他理由。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

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. 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.

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.

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 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. 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.


优点：段落围绕主题句展开，较好地使用连接词衔接各段落。有对论点的展开。对语言控制较好，错误较少。

缺点：文章按照模板来写作（我之前也一直这样，直到认真阅读了AWintro中的评分标准）。首段基本重复题目。可以重新组织文章，使得更加条理。文章在深度展开方面，还有提升的空间。

思路：
1、“缺点大于优点”不正确。全国的受伤数据不能表明P市也如此，例如P市相关机构能较好的协调从而避免这些问题，或者P市较少有从事softball and soccer之类的运动。80，000人受伤，不一定占群体总数的很大比例，未说明比之前受伤的人数比例增大。受伤可能由于其他原因，不一定是运动。几个大城市调查的心理压力不一定适用于P市。未说明具体的运动时间和学术活动的时间，可能只占很小比例。
2、即使softball and soccer如此，不一定要取消所有的运动项目，毕竟它们属于比较激烈的运动。
3、没有考虑体育运动的优点，可以释放压力、增加活力。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

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. 套用模板

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, spanning season, extreme weather phenomenon and so forth. 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. 该段较好

In addition, even assume 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 differences 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. 该段较好，可再扩展详实些

Further more, even assume 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 might be better ones such as stricter ban on dumping. Second, the Omni's regulation cannot guarantee to protect all the marine wildlife. 该段若将第二点充分阐述会更好

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his conclusion that Tria should adopt Omni's regulations. To support his conclusion, the author should provide more information. 需要留意、学习较好的Argument开头、结尾

优点：段落围绕中心句展开，过渡词使用较好。有较详细的例子，文中绿色标出。

缺点：首段套用模板，仅仅重复题目。语法错误较多，文中已用蓝色改正。

自己思路：
1、T的鱼群数量下降不一定由于过渡捕捞，可能由于其他原因。marine sanctuary的目的是保护海洋哺乳生物，可能它们以鱼类为食，短期内鱼类数量会减少，若如此，不用人为干预，生物链会自动调节两者的数量；水温、天气等因素的影响；来自他处的海洋污染。
2、O的措施不一定能保护所有海洋生物。哺乳生物的习性（生产、育儿）可能与其他生物不同。
3、O如此T不一定如此。两地鱼群种类、海洋气候、环境可能不同。

该题的难点在于T地建立某种海洋哺乳动物保护区后该地的鱼类数量减少，其中暗含复杂生物链间的关系，可能该哺乳动物以鱼类为食。题目用O地的10Miles内禁止捕鱼的情况作对比，从而掩饰真正的重点。

ieyangj08UID：2743219

为什么Word里编辑的内容粘贴到帖子里就全都没了，还得重新再编辑。只能先发帖子，再在帖子里编辑吗？请教高手指点

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Argument 35 首次限时，欢迎猛拍

时间果然不够用啊……
用时：35m； 字数：449

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."


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. 套用模板的开头，到底怎样才是好的开头呢？

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.

文章首尾套用模板，简单重复题目。第二段论述了S不一定是头痛减少的原因，可能是食物中其他的化学成分，有简要展开。第三段攻击二十年调查的可信度，展开较好。第四段攻击食品中继续使用S的趋势不一定会持续，展开较好。整体错误较少、围绕段落中心句展开、衔接词较好、展开足够。文中使用了较多的让步，虽然整体流畅，但看起来容易让人费解。让步需要慎用，尤其是二次让步。文章的最大问题在于没有抓住题目的要害。本题重点考察药品用量与疗效之间的关系不一定成正比，过量可能导致其他疾病；头痛减少的其他原因；药品的副作用。

我的思路：
1、twenty-year study 参与者的情况不能代表整体市民的情况。抽样不均匀，可能仅固定于有某一属性的人群。
2、即使能代表，头痛减少的原因不一定时由于食品中添加了S。人们的生活习惯更加健康、空气质量转好等。阿司匹林可以治疗头痛，S不一定可以治疗头痛。
3、食品中添加S可减少头痛，调味剂中再添加不一定可以减少头痛。化学药物的疗效与用量之间的关系不一定呈正比，可能用药过量导致其他严重的疾病。忽略了药品的副作用。对新发现不应该持乐观态度，可能会对市民的健康带来不良影响。