|
閱讀寫作分析—官方範文argumentUniversity of Claria.6分—長安—03.07
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields. For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries. Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. And 75 percent of the students are able to findemployment after graduating. Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.
Claria大學教員名氣好，應該是所有追求品質教育的人的首選——教師名氣大，依據是一些教員發表的研究成果——此外，有幾位教員在他們的領域享有國際知名度，Eg.英語系的教員常受邀出國教學——最近兩位物理系畢業生得到Nobel提名。75%的畢業生就業。
·教員名氣大，研究成果多。這些當然是重要的,knowledgeable/versant scholar/expert/professor/intellect at his domain/discipline/field, demonstration of their excellence.但是academic/ scholarly achievement并不代表教育水平。Teaching is a skill, an art, scholar needs training to be good tutors.inculcation/implant/pass on knowledge/lore/know-how. 比如interpersonal skills, patience, and willing to communicate. People person rather than hermit who ensconce in his study or labs. Relish researching(relish doing sth.沉醉于做某事) by himself. 比如一個nobel prize winner on literature并不一定能教好寫作。
·就算他們水平好書也教得好，教員的數量占的比例呢？鳳毛麟角的話還是沒用，需要知道teacher/student ratio.這裡特別需要outstanding faculty members/students.另外舉例的只是一部分，英語，物理。一個大學還有許多其他專業，學生的興趣也是varied.在沒有搞清楚potential students的興趣之前就貿然建議選擇他家，是irresponsible.學術之外還有其他考慮，諸如學校的硬件設施facillities。
·2個畢業生得到提名，當然是一種achievement,但是畢竟是elite.少數。大多數學生的成績怎么樣？Academic performance/accomplishment. GPA.
·75% are able to get employed.工作究竟怎么樣？Laying Brick in a construction field is a kind of employment.待業時間呢？只說畢業之後找到了工作，沒說馬上，可能between jobs for quite a period of time.
SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training. The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office?
不是我會采用的開頭。第一句廢話句之後，開始直接批。質疑author只提物理英語系的動機。
The assumption is that because English and Physics have excellent brains in the faculty offices, their teaching skills and their abilities to pass on knowledge and the love of learning to their students are equally laudable. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. A prospective student would certainly be advised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the physical plant of the departments in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the living arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities available for leisure activities and entertainment.
同我一樣。水平好不一定教得好。又提出學校的設施，適合居住之類。（個人感覺沒必要，因為攻擊的是quality education）
This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general. Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors. More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student. Are the teaching faculty approachable? Are they helpful? Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge? Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement(這個反問太強大了，真是為教育下一代還是爲了離退休混得更近)? How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes? Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students? Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University handling all those cars? Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school? What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?
Flak of rhetoric questions.基本把我的反駁都綜合了。個人不會采用，雖然氣勢逼人，但容易失去邏輯線索，問到後來就單純地羅列了；而且層次不夠清晰分明。我不適合感情，容易氾濫。
What about that 75% employment record? Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers(flip burger廉價勞動) and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do. A more specific statementabout the employability of students from this University is needed in order to make the argument forceful.
同樣。指出了75%就業的疑點。什麽工作？（我自己還增加了待業時間的批駁）
The paragraph given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about this University in order to entice students and to convince them that this is the best place to obtain a quality education. Much more work is needed by the public relations department before this can be made into a four-color brochure and handed out to prospective students.
個人感覺不是top 6的那種範文。沒有上一篇那個滑旱冰那么牛氣逼人。可能題目較簡單吧（我自己也列出了所有的疑點），語言中上，結構清晰。可能閱卷官青睞的是作者的那一大段氣勢磅礴的反問吧。我個人只持欣賞態度。不敢效顰。
COMMENTARY
The writer of this outstanding response acknowledges that the University of Claria may "appear" to have a sterling reputation, but cogently argues that such a reputation is perhaps unwarranted in light of the thin and misleading information provided. The essay's insightful critique targets several instances of unsound reasoning in the argument:
-- that the argument identifies academic achievements in only two departments;
-- that publications and research prove little about the quality of teaching at Claria; and
-- that the student employment statistic lacks specificity and may be entirely bogus.
The writer probes each questionable assumption and offers alternative explanations, pointing out, for instance, that invitations for faculty to teach elsewhere may have been purposely arranged in order to temporarily remove them from campus and that the employed students may be "flipping burgers(果然是個好詞，rater注意到了) and emptying wastebaskets."
In addition, the response perceptively analyzes many features -- omitted by the argument -- that could more convincingly make the case that Claria is "the obvious choice." The essay suggests that the search for a quality education would, at least, need to investigate the teaching strengths of the faculty; ideally one would also ask about research facilities, the university's physical plant, availability of classes, even parking arrangements!
Although the fourth paragraph ("What about that 75% employment record?") interrupts this discussion, the essay is, on the whole, logically and effectively organized. Each paragraph develops the central premise: that the argument is uncompelling because it fails to use more valid indices of educational quality.
The writing is succinct, graceful, and virtually error-free(膜拜一下), distinguished by impressive diction(都是GRE詞彙，哈哈) ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication. For all of these reasons, the essay earns a 6.
SAMPLE-2 (score 5)
While it is true that the facts presented in the above passage contribute to the idea that the University of Claria is a fine university, it can hardly be concluded from the propaganda that the University of Claria is the best university for every applicant. For example, it appears, based on the passage, that the University of Claria is largely a research-oriented university. No where in the passage, however, is the quality of the education discussed. The faculty/student ratio is not discussed. It is largely possible that while many of the faculty are teaching at universities in other countries, the students at U. Claria are left being taught by graduate students or non-doctoral instructors.
開門見山。喜歡。象徵性肯定下：fine university.但是——不能結論為最好的U。看起來似乎是研究型大學research oriented institution.跟quality education無關。老師總出國，說不定學生就由剩下的研究生來教。簡單攻擊了兩個錯誤。結構我不喜歡。
Secondly, the passage states that 75 percent of graduates from U. Claria find jobs. One wonders where these graduates obtained their jobs. It is possible that very few graduates are able to find work in their fields of major. The number of graduates who enroll in graduate school is also not disclosed. One would expect a large number of graduates from a research-oriented university to pursue research careers. These students would undoubedtly require a graduate school education, rather than simply a Bachelor's level degree. By stating that 75 percent of graduates find employment, the reader is left to wonder why these students entered the workforce, rather than graduate school, since graduates with Bachelor's level degrees often do not land research-oriented jobs.
教育質量好，幹嘛75%畢業了都工作而不繼續研究呢？喜歡!一種完全新的批駁觀點。
Lastly, the socioeconomic status of the institution is not disclosed. Perhaps the University of Claria is an expensive school located in the heart of a large metropolitain city. Certain prospective applicants to the university may not be able to afford such a costly school, nor may the like the idea of living in a crowded metropolis. The fact that the argument leaves our the socioeconomic status of the school leads the reader to believe that the school perhaps has something to hide; perhaps its socioeconomic situation is not something it is proud of. In addition to the "sales pitch" passage, above, the argument should include facts that a diverse group of students may find useful, such as the cost of education and the quality of its teaching program. Only after evaluating all the facts might a student strongly agree that the University of Claria is one of the best universities in the world.
質疑學校的學費，地理位置。這個比較牽強吧，因為學校賣的就是quality education這張牌，只要quality不管學費貴。所以要批駁的點還是它的quality上。還是喜歡自己的那些批駁點。
COMMENTARY
After dismissing the argument's unsupported conclusion about the University of Claria, this strong essay thoughtfully critiques the argument's presumptive line of reasoning. The response targets a root flaw in the argument's logic: that the data provided fail to constitute meaningful evidence of educational quality. The writer notes the lack of essential statistics -- e.g., the faculty/student ratio -- and argues quite effectively that invitations for faculty to teach in other countries may not be a reliable index of educational merit.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 address additional flaws in the argument:
-- whether the 75% of employed graduates found work related to their majors;
-- whether, in a research-oriented institution like Claria, it might not be expected that most graduates would go on to graduate school; and
-- whether Claria might not be affordable to all applicants or might be located in an area that some would find undesirable.
The analysis is clear, sensible, and logically organized, but development is neither as uniform nor as full as in a typical 6 essay(切記！！Uniform and full). Nor is the response as precise as a 6. In the final paragraph, for instance, references to Claria's cost are vaguely described as "the socioeconomic status of the institution.(嚴重同意閱卷官)"
The response exhibits generally good control of language, but awkward phrasing and inflated language sometimes result in a lack of clarity (e.g., "left being taught," "fields of major," "Bachelor's level degree"). Overall, this essay merits a score of 5. It presents a well-developed and effectively written critique, but lacks the cogency and superior fluency of a 6.
唉，看看容易寫來難啊。5分的作者，長安還是要向您致敬！ | 
GO
楼主: 長安
发表于 2010-2-21 15:51:18
转发
