1006G[Redemption]备考贴 by gantian

gantianUID：2650936

Be myself best.

一步步填满这个备考路程
不能懈怠！！加油加油！

没有什么东西是不堪一击，也没有什么是坚不可摧的

任务一：看范文去积累一些语言表达的东西。。。。。太欠缺了
任务二：研究开头段，结尾段和整篇文章的布局问题。论坛上宝藏好多好多呀，多去淘～～

gantianUID：2650936

任务计划：
一、ISSUE：
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=4#pid1773594083

精华帖笔记：
一、ISSUE：
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=4#pid1773594188

阶段性总结：
一、思考Argu：
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=3#pid1773569657


作业帖链接：

第一次作业：
分析AWIntro
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=1#pid1773541358

第二次作业：
Argument51
习作：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=1#pid1773541785
总结：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=1#pid1773548295
Issue130

第三次作业：
Argument53
习作：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=1#pid1773548367
总结：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=1#pid1773555055
Issue

第四次作业：
Argument47
习作：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=2#pid1773556771
总结：
Issue

第五次作业：
Argument238
习作：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=2#pid1773564706
总结+重写：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=2#pid1773569567

6，7呢？？？我也不知道了 - -||

第八次作业：
ISSUE28
习作：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=4#pid1773598302
总结：

第九次作业：
ISSUE136
习作：https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1054070&page=1#pid1773598322
总结：
...

gantianUID：2650936

第一次作业--分析AWIntro

[AWIntro笔记]
Analyze an Argument Task:

Ability:
understand, analyze, and evaluate arguments
convey your analysis

Task:
discuss the logical soundness. (Critically examining the line of reasoning and the use of evidence)

Attention：
• what is offeredas evidence, support, or proof
• whatis explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded
• whatis assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof
• whatis not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated
/*也就是要分清楚什么是事实，什么是推理（<= 推理是用来怀疑和反驳的）*/

Preparing for the Argument Task：
• carefully read the argument—you might want to read it over more than once
• identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible /*区分事实和推理*/
• think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can /*找出他因和反例*/
• think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims
• ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound

Interpret Numbers, Percentages, and Statistics
They are evaluated as evidence that is intended to support the conclusion.
Argument topics are used only as evidence in support of a conclusion, and you should always consider
whether they actually support the conclusion.


/*……*/

[Sample 1]
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room afterroller skating accidents indicate the need for more protectiveequipment. Within this group ofpeople, 75 percent of those who hadaccidents in streets or parking lots werenot wearing any protectiveclothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or anylight-reflecting material(clip-on lights,glow-in-the-darkwrist pads, etc.). Clearly, thesestatistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gearand reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their riskof being severely injured in an accident.

[Score 6]
因为作文大讲堂上有这篇，所以笔记写在纸质书上

[Score 5]
(*指出了整体的因果关系s*)The argument presented is limitedbut useful. It indicates a possible relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lackof protective equipment.(*e*) (*第1点*)The statistics cited compel a further investigation of the usefulness of protective gearin preventing ormitigating roller-skating related injuries. However,the conclusion thatprotective gear and reflective equipment would"greatly reduce.risk ofbeing severely injured" is premature. (*第2点*) Data is lacking with reference to the totalpopulation of skaters and the relative levelsof experience,skill and physical coordination of that population.It is entirelypossible that further research would indicate that most serious injuryis averted by the skater'sability to react quickly and skillfully inemergency situations.

(*第3点*)Another area ofinvestigation necessary before conclusions can be reached is identification of the types of injuriesthatoccur and the various causes of those injuries. The article failsto identifythe most prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries.It also fails tocorrelate the absence of protective gear and reflectiveequipment to thoseinjuries. For example, if the majority of injuriesare skin abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be madefor the usefulness of protectiveclothing mentioned. Likewise, ifinjuries are caused by collision with vehicles(e.g. bicycles, cars) orpedestrians, then light-reflective equipment mightmitigate theoccurences. However, if the primary types of injuries aresoft-tissueinjuries such as torn ligaments and muscles, back injuriesand the like, then agreater case could be made for training andexperience as preventative measures.

Present Your Perspective on an Issue Task:
Ability:
think critically
clearly express thoughts

Task:
present a compelling case for your own position on the issue

Strategies:
use of examples, development and support, organization, language fluency, and word choice.

• carefully read the claim made in the topic and make sure you understand the issue involved; if it seems unclear, discuss it with a friend or teacher
• think about the issue in relation to your own ideas and experiences,to events you have read about or observed, and to people you haveknown; this is the knowledge base from which you will developcompelling reasons and examples in your argument that reinforce,negate, or qualify the claim in some way
• decide what positionon the issue you want to take and defend—remember you are free to agreeor disagree completely or to agree with some parts or some applicationsbut not others
• decide what compelling evidence (reasons and examples) you can use to support your position  /*积累素材是平时最应该注意的一个部分*/



Explore the complexity of a claim:   /*这些问题用来审题，从而把问题展开才好写*/
• What, precisely, is the central issue?
• Do I agree with all or with any part of the claim?  Why or why not?
• Does the claim make certain assumptions?  If so, are they reasonable?
• Is the claim valid only under certain conditions?  If so, what are they?
• Do I need to explain how I interpret certain terms or concepts used in the claim?
• If I take a certain position on the issue, what reasons support my position?
• What examples—either real or hypothetical—could I use to illustratethose reasons and advance my point of view?  Which examples are mostcompelling?

[Sample 1]
“Inour time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated.  We need moregeneralists—people who can provide broad perspectives."

Interpretation for the topic:/*解题*/
• What are the main differences between specialists and generalists?  What are the strong points of each? /*先弄清楚概念*/
• Do these differences always hold in various professions orsituations?  Could there be some specialists, for example, who alsoneed to have very broad knowledge and general abilities to performtheir work well?
• How do generalists and specialists function in your field?
• What value do you think society places on specialists andgeneralists?  Are specialists overvalued in some situations, and not inothers?   /*针对 overrated 辩证地来思考*/
• Does society really need more generalists than it has?  If so, what needs would they serve?  

[Score 6] 记在作文大讲堂P18

[Score 5]
[直接指出论点支持Specialist]
[开头段：列举了Generalist的一些特点，通过让步更强调Specialist]
Specialists are notoverrated today. Moregeneralists may be needed, but not to overshadow the specialists.Generalists can provide a great deal of information on many topicsofinterest with a broad range of ideas. People who look at the overallview of things can help with some of the large problems our societyfaces today. But specialists are necessary to gain a betterunderstanding of more in depth methods to solve problems or fixingthings.

[Specialist事例1：通过事例对比出Generalist 和 Specialist在medical field一个专业领域的区别]
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 personis sick, he may go to a general practitioner to find out the cause ofhis problems. Usually, this kind of "generalized" doctor can help mostailments with simple and effective treatments. Sometimes, though, asickness may go beyond a family doctor's knowledge or the prescribedtreatments don't work the way they should. When a sickness progressesor becomes diagnosed as a disease that requires more carethan a familydoctor can provide, he may be referred to a specialist. Forinstance, aperson with constant breathing problems that require hospitalizationmay be suggested to visit an asthma specialist. Since a family doctorhas agreat deal of knowledge of medicine, he can decide when hismethods are noteffective and the patient needs to see someone who knowsmore about the specific problem; someone who knows how it begins,progresses, and specified treatments. This is an excellent example ofhow a generalied person may not be equipped enough to handle somethingas well as a specialized one can.

[Specialist事例2：通过事例对比出Generalist 和 Specialist在teaching上的区别]
Another example of a specialist who is needed instead of a generalist involves teaching.  Ingrammar school, children learn all the basic principles of reading,writing, and arithematic.  But as children get older and progress inschool, they gain a better understanding of the language andmathematical processes.  As the years in school increase, they need tolearn more and more specifics and details about various subjects. Theystart out by learning basic math concepts such as addition,subtraction, division, and multiplication.  A few years later, they areready to begin algebraic concepts, geometry, and calculus. They arealso ready to learn more advanced vocabulary, the principles of how alllife is composed and how it functions.  One teacher or professor cannot provide as much in depth discussion on all of these topics as wellas one who has learned the specifics and studied mainly to knoweverything that is currently known about one of thesesubjects.  Generalized teachers are required to begin molding studentsat a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of themin gaining more facts about the basic subjects and finding out newfacts on the old ones.

[结尾段，总结以上2个例子，同时再次对比Specialist和Generalist]
These are only two examples of why specialists are not highly overrated and more generalists are not necessary to the point of overshadowing them.  Generalistsare needed to give the public a broad understanding of somethings.  But , specialists are important to help maintain the status,health, and safety of our society.  Specialists are very necessary.

gantianUID：2650936

第二次作业--Argument


第一次写作文，无奈在上课笔记上找了很多句子。作文水平不行望多加指点。。

题目：
51.The following appeared in a medicalnewsletter.

"[Hypothesis]Doctors have long suspectedthat secondary infections may keep some patients from healingquickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved bypreliminary results of [Evidence]a study of two groups of patients. The firstgroup of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland,a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularlythroughout their treatment. Their recuperation time
was,on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the secondgroup, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were givensugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Theiraverage recuperation time was not significantly reduced. [Conclusion]Therefore,all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be welladvised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

题目分析：
分解：（参考http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-1410047-1-7.html）
[Hypothesis]
Doctors have long suspected that secondaryinfections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain.

[Evidence]
a study of two groups of patients.
(*
Selective Sample
Differences in the study => the differences in recuperation time is due to the secondary infection
*)

[Conclusion]
Therefore, all patients who are diagnosedwith muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of theirtreatment."
(*
secondary infection can be cured byantibiotics
Sufficiency?
Bad results of antibiotics?
*)

逻辑关系：
[Evidence]==> [Hypothesis]
[Hypothesis]==> [Conclusion]

攻击步骤：
先攻击[Evidence]: (弱攻击），在攻击论据的时候：“但是不知道你们发现了没有，不管你怎么攻击这个证据，顶多也就是个informationtoo vague，没有能重伤这个文章让别人怀疑的能力。”从而说[Evidence] ==> [Hypothesis]不成立。

让步说就算[Hypothesis]成立，[Hypothesis] ==> [Conclusion]也不成立（强攻击）

提纲：
1.开头段：先说作者的结论。然后作者为了证明这结论，提供了一个对比试验的结果。
2.Evidence到Hypothesis的问题
3.就算Hypothesis正确，往Conclusion推也不对
4.Conclusion的问题
5.结尾段

习作：

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics for quicker healing. To strengthen this conclusion, the arguer provides a study about different treatment on two groups of patients. At first glance, the argument might be somewhat reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

First of all, the argument claims that the hypothesis which secondary infections may interfere in patients' recovery rate has been proved by the different results of two groups of patients’ recuperation time. The arguer assumes unfairly that the longer recuperation time is the result of the secondary infections. The assumption is unwarranted because it ignores a host of other possible explanations for the different results. There lies a significant number of dissimilarity between the two groups in the study. For example, Dr. Newland is a sports medicine specialist. What if the patients got injuries in a severe football game? Under such circumstance, it's unfair to contrast them with the patients in the group treated by Dr. Alton. Therefore, the result of the study is not reliable.

Second, even considering that secondary infection is the key to patients' recovery, the arguer assumes without justification that secondary infection can be cured by antibiotics which is the main element in distinguishing the two groups of patients. However, it is entirely possible that the patients who recovered faster were determined by some special medicine from Dr. Newland whereas another group of patients didn't have. In short, without accounting for important possibilities which may lead to the cure of secondary infection, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will work in the treatment.

Finally, the arguer entirely ignores the possible consequences brought about by the antibiotics. Inappropriate antibiotic treatment and overuse of antibiotics have been a contributing factor to the emergence of resistant bacteria. Without thinking about these mistakes, we cannot accept the arguer's recommendation of taking antibiotics as part of the treatment.

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion about antibiotics is not well supported as it stands. Doctors must consider carefully when making the plan for the treatment.

笔记：
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=412534
1.要写好argument，首先就是要学会读题目
2.Argument感到应该寻找其中的逻辑线索加以联合攻击，而不是零落单个的看论据找出错误。
3.先攻击前提立足的那个证据，证明是假的，所以前提无法成立，前提不在了，结论不攻自破。然后让步说既是前提成立，也推不出结论。

gantianUID：2650936

第二次作业--Issue

叹。。。Issue完全没有头绪诶。惆怅了一早上了。尽力写了。先研究题目～～

gantianUID：2650936

修改by 小鸟

4# gantian

模板化句子
错误（个人感觉）
个人意见

习作：

In this argument, the arguer concludes thatall patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics forquicker healing. To strengthen this conclusion, the arguer provides a studyabout different treatment on two groups of patients. Atfirst glance, the argument might be somewhat reasonable, but close scrutinyreveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore (这个地方。。换成WHICH MAKE THE ARGUMET怎么样？) unpersuasive.

1.First of all, theargument claims that the hypothesis which secondary infections mayinterfere in patients' recovery rate has been proved by the different results of two groups of patients’ recuperation time（直接说astudy). The arguer assumes unfairlythat the longer recuperation time is the result of thesecondary infections. The assumption is unwarrantedbecause it ignores a host of other possible explanations for thedifferent results. There lies a significant number ofdissimilarity between the two groups in the study. For example, Dr.Newland is a sports medicine specialist. What if the patients got injuries in asevere football game? Under such circumstance, it's unfair to contrast themwith the patients in the group treated by Dr. Alton. Therefore, the result ofthe study is not reliable.（实验--secondary infections is the main reason 反驳the main reason 原因
可能其他因素
医生不一样。
这里反驳的是实验的不合理性，医生等因素导致的可能是二次感染以外的因素致使结果）

2.Second, evenconsidering that secondary infection is the key to patients' recovery.the arguer assumes without justification that secondary infection can be curedby antibiotics which is the main element in distinguishing the two groups ofpatients. However, it is entirely possible thatthe patients who recovered faster were determined by some special medicine fromDr. Newland whereas another group of patients didn't have.（又是两个医生的差异） In short, without accounting for important possibilitieswhich may lead to the cure ofsecondary infection, the arguercannot reasonably prove the proposed method will work in the treatment.（这里是对结论的反驳antibiotics 不能作为治愈的普遍方法）

3.Finally, thearguer entirely ignores the possible consequences brought about by theantibiotics. Inappropriate antibiotic treatment and overuse of antibiotics havebeen a contributing factor to the emergence of resistant bacteria. Withoutthinking about these mistakes, we cannot accept the arguer's recommendation oftaking antibiotics as part of the treatment.
（不恰当的服用抗生素可能会带来害处，我觉得这个攻击段有些牵强，假如抗生素真的对二次感染有效果，那么用量方法绝对是次要的。个人意见，主要的攻击点应该是all patients，
抗生素可能对ALL 中的一些人不利，过敏等.）

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion about antibiotics is not well supported as it stands（按照实际情况）（感觉怪怪的‘is not well supported by 论据’
比较对味，这里as it stands 按照现在的情况没有被支撑？）. Doctors must considercarefully when making the plan for the treatment.





提纲：
1、反驳前提，医生等因素也可能导致使结果，前提中二次感染的不正确
2、反驳结论，即便前提正确，医生等因素也可能导致使结果，结论中抗生素的不正确
3、反驳结论，不恰当的服用抗生素可能会带来害处



我的看法：
反驳前提和结论是对的，但是攻击的点不对，攻击的论据也不佳。https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=412534这个帖子说的是抛开两组病人不管我单讨论前提和结论这一对主逻辑来发现攻击错误，也就是说即便不不做对照试验，这一对关系依然不成立（即便前提对也推不出结论),而病人对照组与结论又是另外一组从属逻辑（对照组来说明前提的正确性，同时来论证结论的可行性，即二次感染造成了治愈延迟，而抗生素可以抑制二次感染）。而本文中明显将这两层逻辑关系混淆了，将医生不同因素（对照组）扯到了前提与结论的论证中了，这样在读你文章的过程中我的脑子也被弄的很乱。
个人意见：按以下层次进行论证
主逻辑：（抛开实验组）
即便前提对也推不出结论
前提：Doctorshave long suspected that secondaryinfections may keep some patients fromhealing quickly after severemuscle strain
结论：Therefore, allpatients who arediagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as partof their treatment
1、所有病人（是不是有人过敏）
2、SEVERE是什么概念
不是SEVERE的是不是没有必要或者没有效果
3、ANTIBIOTICS 和
二次感染之间的关系(有必然性吗？）
从属逻辑：
实验中的错误
1、医生因素
2、群体差异等
从属逻辑的错误推出主结论及前提的不确切性

先主后从，贴子中论述了主逻辑的重要性并没有让你不讨论从属逻辑的漏洞...
原文不到400字，我想把从属逻辑等等错误罗列起来应该能达到500字了


从你的笔记中我学习到了很多东西，今天改的这篇A使我有很大收获特别是在逻辑层次方面，看了一个小时 - -.. 原来觉得挺乱，越理越有感觉...谢谢~

-------小鸟

个人总结：
第一次写Argu，从分析题目到完成花了将近6个小时。把主要精力放在了分析错误的逻辑和如何安排攻击的逻辑上，但是在写文章的时候却没能够把这个逻辑体现出来。在看了小鸟同学的修改后豁然开朗找到了这篇文章的最大问题。“攻击的点不对，攻击的论据也不佳”。在选取攻击论据的时候没有经过思考，只是想到攻击[Evidence]=>[Hypothesis]和[Hypothesis]=>[Conclusion]，却没有仔细分析过应该用哪些错误来攻击这2个逻辑错误，从而导致“本文中明显将这两层逻辑关系混淆了，将医生不同因素（对照组）扯到了前提与结论的论证中了”

完成这篇Argu的体会：
1. 分析Argu范文的时候，首先把题目的逻辑层次理清楚，再找出每个逻辑层次的错误，从而来安排攻击顺序和攻击所用的点。
2. 累积攻击语言，这次通篇都是使用的模板语言。

最后十分十分十分真心地感谢小鸟同学～～点出的那几个大问题让我开窍了不少，并且其他的一些建议也让我很有收获。。。谢谢谢！！（我还在惭愧地还拖着Issue没写出来，等能够跟上进度以后再来回拍。。。也想把这篇Argu重新写一遍从头来整理一次思路）

gantianUID：2650936

5# gantian

占楼。

gantianUID：2650936

第三次作业--Argu

53. [Evidence1] Thirteen years ago, researchersstudied a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed tounfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknownvoice. [Evidence1.1]Theydiscovered that these infants were more likely than other infants to have beenconceived in early autumn, a time when their mothers' production of melatonin-ahormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase inresponse to decreased daylight. [Evidence2]In a follow-up study conducted earlierthis year, more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signsof distress identified themselves as shy. [Conclusion]Clearly, [C.a] increased levels of melatoninbefore birth cause shyness during infancy and [C.b] this shyness continues intolater life.

题目分析：

[Evidence1]
13y ago, a study of 25 infants’ reacting tounfamiliar stimuli

[Evidence1.1]
The infants were conceived in early autumnduring which the production of melatonin increase

[Deduction1]
Melatonin --> milddistress

[Evidence2]
Earlier this year, >50% these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselvesas shy.

[Conclusion]
[C.a] increased levels ofmelatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and [C.b] this shyness continues intolater life.

逻辑关系：
[Evidence1.1]==> [Deduction1](这是是包含在Evidence1中的逻辑错误)
[Evidence1]==> [C.a]
[Evidence2]==> [C.b]

攻击步骤：
1.
攻击[Evidence1](弱攻击）：典型的Survey类，
a.样本大小不够
b.样本随机性差，这25个可能都是由于同样的环境造成的。
c.Mild distress 有可能是正常的reaction
2.
攻击[Evidence1.1]==> [Deduction1] (强攻击）：这里犯了因果类错误，melatonin increase during autumn和infantswere conceived in early autumn 同时发生，就认为Melatoninà milddistress。
3.
攻击[Evidence1] ==> [C.a] (强攻击）：这里犯了因果类错误，Melatonin有可能只影响母亲而不影响婴儿，就算它影响婴儿也不一定是导致其milddistress。
4.
攻击[Evidence2] ==> [C.b] (强攻击）：
//a.show signs of distress有可能只是当时的一个正常反应或者误判。
b.孩子现在才teenagers，还未成长完，怎么能定义为性格shy，有可能shy就是青春期正常的性格特点。就算现在shy,等他们成年以后，还会shy么？（时间推广）
//c.就算是真的shy，这也可能是后天成长时候环境和经历的影响

提纲：
1.开头段：先说作者的结论。然后作者由2个study得出此结论。
2.[Evidence1]的问题和包含在[Evidence1]中[Evidence1.1] ==> [Deduction1]的逻辑错误
3.[Evidence1] ==> [C.a]
4.[Evidence1] ==> [C.a]
5.结尾段

习作：

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the higher level of melatonin before birth could cause shyness during infancy and this shyness would continue to later life. In order to support this conclusion, the arguer cites two studies--the one in which assumes a correlation between melatonin increase and mild distress and the other points out that the shyness of the infants will last to their later life. However, close scrutiny of the line of reasoning renders the argument as unpersuasive.

First of all, researchers studied only a group of 25 infants which is so small that we can hardly draw any conclusion from it. Unless they chose a sufficient number of infants and did so randomly across the entire population, the results of the study are not acceptable. For example, the 25 infants may come from the same place and people in this district suffer from a kind of psychological diseases due to the specific environment. Besides, the arguer's inference is based on the definition that mild distress before unfamiliar stimuli is a kind of shyness. However, the babies are too young to express their feelings. It's hard to determine the real emotion of the child. It may be a natural response to an unfamiliar stimulus rather than be interpreted as shyness.

Second, the arguer unfairly indicates that the melatonin’s increase contributes to mild distress. The mothers' early autumn conceiving and the higher level of melatonin in fall just happened in the same time. It cannot conclude that the melatonin has effects on the mothers and the reaction of mothers' baby was due to it. Perhaps it is the amount of melatonin increased which is not sufficient lead to this phenomenon. Without ruling out the actual function of melatonin, the arguer cannot reasonably conclude that the melatonin is responsible for the distress.

Third, even I concede that melatonin is attributable to the infants' shyness, the arguer unfairly conclude that the shyness will continue into later life. As the individuals in the study are only at teen ages during which the characteristic of shyness may be normal for the adolescent. And it is entirely possible that a shy teenager would become a open-minded grow-up.

To sum up, this argument, while seems logical at first, have several flaws as discussed above. To bolster it, the author need to provide reliable study that melatonin is the factor of distress. To better assess the problem, the argument should show evidence that the shyness would not be eliminated in later life.

gantianUID：2650936

第三次作业--ISSUE
又欠作业了。。叹。。。

gantianUID：2650936

第三次作业--Argu修改+总结

修改by 小鸟
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the higher level of melatonin before birth could cause shyness during infancy and this shyness would continue to later life. In order to support this conclusion, the arguer cites two studies--the one in which assumes a correlation between melatonin increase and mild distress and the other points out that the shyness of the infants will last to their later life. However, close scrutiny of the line of reasoning renders the argument as unpersuasive.

First of all, researchers studied only a group of 25 infants which is so small that we can hardly draw any conclusion（ANY会不会太绝对了？conclusions） from it. Unless they chose a sufficient number of infants and did so randomly across the entire population, the results of the study are not acceptable. For example, the 25 infants may come from the same place and people in this district suffer from a kind of psychological diseases due to the specific environment. Besides, the arguer's inference is based on the definition that mild distress before unfamiliar stimuli is a kind of shyness. However, the babies are too young to express their feelings. It's hard to determine the real emotion of the child. It may be a natural response to an unfamiliar stimulus rather than be interpreted as （不如去掉）shyness.

Second, the arguer unfairly indicates that the melatonin’s increase contributes to mild distress. The mothers' early autumn conceiving and the higher level of melatonin in fall just happened in the same time. It cannot conclude that the melatonin has effects on the mothers and the reaction of mothers' baby was due to it. Perhaps it is the amount of melatonin increased which is not sufficient lead to this phenomenon. Without ruling out the actual function of melatonin, the arguer cannot reasonably conclude that the melatonin is responsible for the distress.（这个地方有点牵强，A中说秋天日光减少了导致MELATONIN增多，按你的推理，其他季节岂不是全SHY了？）

Third, even I concede that melatonin is attributable to the infants' shyness, the arguer unfairly concludes that the shyness will continue into later life. As the individuals in the study are only at teen ages during which the characteristic of shyness may be normal for the adolescent. And it is entirely possible that a shy teenager would become a open-minded grow-up.

To sum up, this argument, while seems logical at first, have several flaws as discussed above. To bolster it, the author need to provide reliable study that melatonin is the factor of distress. To better assess the problem, the argument should show evidence that the shyness would not be eliminated in later life.(就算以后SHY也不能明确是XX激素影响的，这一段语法是不是有点…the factor of distress何解？)

逻辑分析很好，但感觉没有有力的反驳A中的逻辑漏洞，论证不是太有说服力（个人感觉哈~），文章语法方面感觉还是要提高一下滴，每次写完了读一遍，一定要读出来（会有神奇的效果）。

我最近在背范文，推荐一下，对语言和文章整体结构的把握有一定帮助，当然不要照搬，蹂躏一下就是自己的了~O(∩_∩)O~题目分析那个帖子不错~

个人总结：
写的第二篇Argu，重点也是放在了找出逻辑错误点。修改人又一针见血指出最大毛病--没有有力的反驳A中的逻辑漏洞，论证不是太有说服力，这是2方面能力的欠缺，1.寻找某一推论的他因能力，选取的他因来都很牵强。2.语言表达能力（就是论证没有说服力。。）原因是因为写不出驳论的句子，就去找模板中对应的插入进来，经常插入得很勉强，所以没有点到关键地方。
改进方法：还是得多一些输入（多看范文。。，关注点要放在语言表达，驳论的方法和文章的构架上）。
最后再谢谢小鸟组长批改了～～加油加油^_^

gantianUID：2650936

占楼

gantianUID：2650936

第四次作业--Argu45

45. The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"[Background] Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. [Evidence1]Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. [Evidence2] Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. [Evidence3]Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, [Conclusion]we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."


题目分析：（参考）

分解：
[Background](不需要攻击，可以作为被引用的话来攻击其他点的材料)
Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice fromisland to island during the course of a year.

[Evidence1]
Arctic deer’s habitat is limited to [cold, warm].
Cold: the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it.
Warm: sustain the plants to feed the deer

[Evidence2]
According to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining.

[Evidence3]
[E3.a] globalwarming trends that have caused thesea ice to melt
[E3.b] global warming coincide with the declination of population

[Conclusion]
deer cannot followtheir age-old migration across the frozen sea ==> decline in arcticdeer populations


逻辑关系：
1.deer的数量在减少(由[Evidence2]得知) （已知）
-->
2.[Evidence3]&[Evidence1] ==> deer没有让他们travel over的ice了
（推论）
-->
3. deer不能按原来的迁徙习惯穿过结冰海面==> deer的数量减少（由推论&已知得出）

攻击步骤：
1.攻击[Evidence2](弱攻击）：
    Reports fromlocal hunters. Hunters如何判断population aredeclining? 有可能是他们的report是错误的（比如是他们的local的结论，不能推广开）。

2.攻击[Evidence3]&[Evidence1]==>deer无travel over的ice了(强攻击）：
    文章中只说了global warming 使得 sea ice融化，但没有说融化到什么程度，有可能只融化一点点，deer依旧可以在上面行走。
    就算ice融化了，也没有说是A deer居住地Canada'sarctic region的冰融化。

3.攻击由[已知&推论] 得知deer不能按原来的迁徙习惯穿过结冰海面(强攻击）：
    题目说到cold enough, at least some of the year。也就是只需要一年中的某些时间cold enough能结冰去穿过。Global warming可能使得最高温那段时间没有结冰，但是最低温的那段时间还是可以结冰，deer原来的迁徙习惯就是在最冷结冰那段时间去穿过海面。
    就算全年都没有结冰，在背景中提到穿过结冰海面是为了search for food。并且warm是为了sustain the plants。有可能温度上升后plants也变多了，这样都不用去穿越结冰海面了

4.攻击deer不能按原来的迁徙习惯穿过结冰海面==> deer的数量减少(强攻击）：
    就算deer不能按原来的迁徙习惯穿过结冰海面，并且deer的数量减少，也不能说前者是后者的原因。有很多其他的原因。比如温度升高导致deer无法适应高一点的温度，也有可能是hunter过度捕杀（文章中有出现local hunters）

提纲：




abcd

gantianUID：2650936

第四次作业--Issue

gantianUID：2650936

回复

gantianUID：2650936

再回复