1006G 【clover】备考日志 by cyct

cyctUID：2728144

1.寄托ID：cyct

2.具体的机考时间和地点：3月12日 上海财大

3.评估下目前自己所处的水平，列出是否满足申请要求里面的几条内容：
  （1）.1006G，三月中下旬机考的童鞋。——完全符合
  （2）.已经了解什么是argu，什么是issue，argu和issue的题库至少看过一遍，intro也读过一遍。——符合，现已听完XDF的Argu的课堂录音，马上听完Issue的，并认真做好笔记。Argu和Issue的题库扫过一遍，但不是非常熟悉。Intro的AW部分认真读过。
  （3）.对于语法，不会出现低级错误，即可以写出流畅的句子；对于单词拼写，不会总是有混淆，不会总是因为词汇量太低而不知如何是好。——语法应该没什么问题，虽然四级600+，六级500+，但是作文一直是自己的鸡肋，不是非常有信心，很大的原因是平时写的不多，词汇量不小但好久不写很多都用不上来了。但是之前有完整写科研paper的经历，所以也不至于太差。
  （4）.有毅力，有热情，积极向上，愿意奉献，充分信任。——这点保证可以达到。小弟虽然基础不是最好的，但毅力热情绝对可以保证不逊于任何人，本人经历也是这么脚踏实地一步步走上来的。
  （5）.每周至少有4-5天可以上寄托，上QQ参加会议，并且讨论题目，更新作业和自己的备考日志。——现在的时间都是自己的，虽然是ss，但之前花了大量时间把实验室的事情处理了，所以这点也绝对可以保证。
  （6）.红宝至少要过了一遍。看过背过杨鹏难句的优先考虑。——红宝按25天的背过一遍，效果一般，现在再看第二遍，差不多看了也快完了，效果还算不错。杨鹏难句每天也坚持半小时在看。


4.自己以后可以为AW和笔试付出多少：
    寒假基本就在学校复习，没有10小时至少也可以保证8小时，基本算不给自己放假了，当然除了大年30回去一下，不然这么近还不回去就是不孝了，俗话说百善孝为先嘛，呵呵。上面也提到过，之前基本完成了其他工作，所以现在的时间完全可以由自己掌控，除3月份机考完有个一周的会议，其他时间可以100%的投入。


5.写一段100-200的英语。任意写什么。
When I was an undergraduate student, I never thought about going abroad, since I mistakenly thought I could get the same experiences in China as in U.S. However, what I thought was completely wrong when I talked with some friends who had studied in U.S for nearly one year. Everything changed since then, idea, life and whatever you can image. Now I got up earlier than anyone else, just for one simple reason that I believe I could learn more if I go abroad. This time nothing could change my mind.
Every group has its own values. I will be glad if we can match each other and pursue the same goal together. Of course, no matter whether I can join your group or not I will still try my best to move forward. By the way, if gter have any problem about improving your research background or writing research paper, do not hesitate to contact me.


最后引用一下

最终寄语：我们只是一个方向标，指引着方向，却没办法成为送你们到达目的地的风。路在路上，一步一步脚踏实地地走下去，去体验大地的真实感，而不要总想着飞翔，想着虚无缥缈的翅膀。记住，淡定，静心，才能够成功。

cyctUID：2728144

1.备考篇

1.1请各位组员今后扎实备考，不走那些所谓的捷径。不怕苦不怕累。对于那些三心二意的童鞋们，我要说的恐怕是再见了。

1.2每天自觉并保质保量完成作业，按照clover plan上的计划每天更新日志。

1.3在学习新东西的同时，定时总结。做到温故而知新。经实践证明，这是备战的王道。

2.组员篇

2.1组内童鞋团结友爱，互相帮助，彼此信任。积极分享备考资料，讨论备考心得。我为人人，人人为我。

2.2 保持乐观的心态。

3.纪律篇

丑化说在前，讲一下T人的条件

3.1 严格遵守组内的请销假制度。三天不能上线的须向银落或Bela说明原因。对于违反两次以上的，格T勿论。

3.2 组长会定时检查组内作业完成情况。对于那些三天以上未能完成作业而不做说明的，Byebye

3.3 积极参加组内会议。对于连续三次不能到会而没有特殊原因者，踢无赦。

总而言之，希望大家在从今日到进入考场的那一刻，做应该做的事。对的起自己的精力，对的起自己的时间，对的起自己清心寡欲的生活，对的起所放弃的一切的一切。其他不说了，keep going!

cyctUID：2728144

1月31日作业：

都是第一次写，强忍着憋出来的，所以模仿的痕迹有点重，以后慢慢整理改正，ARGU先发，ISSUE还在努力中。。。。
147 The following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine.
"Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months."



The conclusion of this argument is that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months. To support this claim, the arguer, basing on the survey, points out that it is the video games providing lifelike graphic which require the most up-to-date computers that are preferred by players. In addition, the arguer provides the evidence that Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. However, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to address in this analysis, may seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, the arguer fails to take into account other factors that might influence the sales of Whirlwind video games. As we know, the sales of video games depend on several factors besides the video games itself and advertisement. For instance, some other companies might have already provided similar products, which would significantly affect the market of Whirlwind video games and so does its sales. Besides, the factors that whether the players own the most up-to-date computers or the management in the company are neglected by the arguer. Therefore, even if players preferred the Whirlwind video games and the extensive advertising campaign was extremely successful, there is no guarantee that the sales of Whirlwind video games will increase in the next few months.

Another fallacy in this argument is that no evidence is provided to indicate that people at 10 to 25 years old will play above-mentioned video games. It is possible that people at 10 to 25 are more likely to play other games rather than that with lifelike graphics, which is dramatically different from that at other age. It is true that the survey shows that the video-game players prefer games containing lifelike graphics, but without providing the percentage of people at different age in the survey, the arguer could not simply assume that the people at 10 to 25 years old will also prefer these video games.

Before I come into my conclusion, it is necessary to point another fallacy in the argument. The question in the survey is unwarranted that does not lead to the conclusion. On the one hand, other features besides the most important one may also influence the overall quality of a game, which also should be mentioned in the survey. On the other hand, the factors rather than video games itself should also be considered in the survey, such as the customer's income, competitors and market potential, all of them will significantly influence the sales. Only if all factors were considered, the arguer can draw a reasonable conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument for video games based on feature preference survey could not lead to a conclusion that the sales of the Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must take account of other factors that will also influence the sales. Moreover, we need more information about the preference of people at 10 to 25 years old in order to solidify the argument.

canbaoUID：2384573

强忍到后面就是爆发式地下笔如流了。。。呵呵

cyctUID：2728144

ETS Argument 部分解析Pay special attention to:

• what is offered as evidence, support, or proof 论据
• what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded
结论
• what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof
推理过程中的未加证明的假设
• what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated
论据中的潜在后果

同时，还要考虑原题目中的逻辑链：这是我们攻击的要点，尤其是隐含的逻辑步骤。

把原题中的三段式论证给打拆开，逐一地进行分析。同样的analytical writing的核心也就是拆开原命题，分成1串逻辑链，然后一部分一部分地讨论。

• 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
找出结论，隐含假设（并质疑）
• think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can
寻找它因和寻找反例
• think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims
加条件后讨论
这里重要的是加上一个常识性条件后，能意识到，有些情况，是支持原命题的。这一点至关重要，我们是讨论，要求同存异，而不是一味的批驳。
• ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound
提出改进方案

以上四点是核心论证方法！所有的满分范文中都用到了这四种方法。

满分作文的模式：
essays at the 6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the main points of the critique。
先复述题目，然后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。

高分作文的攻击顺序：
You might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself, discussing the argument line by line. Or you might want to first point out a central questionable assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws in the argument's line of reasoning.这里给出了两种攻击顺序，根据我读了一个多月awintro的经验来看，一般官方给出的建议总是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推荐issue观点的时候总是把平衡观点放在最后。
所以这里比较好的方案是先质疑一个核心的假设，然后再按照原文逻辑来搞。


6分作文标准:
A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical paper in this category
• clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
• develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
• effectively supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
• demonstrates facility with the conventions (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written English but may have minor errors

cyctUID：2728144

Sample Argument Topic
Argument test 4: Roller Skating

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

Benchmark 6
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 prevent 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.
让步，复述结论，之后再指出有缺陷。

前两句首先肯定了原命题中值得肯定的地方。这是求同存异的表现。注意这里第一句作者同意原命题的同时，在第二句紧接着就给出了展开的证明。而没有光是罗列观点。

再说原命题是存在逻辑漏洞的，即它因。这里并没有展开论证，因为这是全文的中心句，整个文章都在后面给予论证。同时，最后半句给出了论据中的潜在后果。

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.
body打头第一段是属于攻击总前提假设的，作者认为这个（即保护性设备和防护性设备的差别）是有必要在讨论一切之前弄清楚的。论证方法为质疑假设，加条件后讨论，提出建议。实际上，这个前提对应的就是开头段的前两句话。深层的含义就是，尽管我在开头对你的某一个部分作了让步似的同意，但是这个同意也是建立在一定的假设基础上的，要是这个假设搞不清楚，哼哼我让不让步还不一定呢！本段就来讨论这个假设基础。

这两句分别从两个方面进行了论述，为本段第一句话的论证进行服务，每一方面的具体方法是先定义，再比较。论证方法为加上不同的条件后进行讨论，比如前一句话假定只有防护性装备会怎样，后一句话假定只有保护性装备会怎么样。

这里提出了作者的建议，即如何通过进一步的完善使原命题更加的有力

如果这个问题（保护防护设备的差别）解决了后面的讨论才能继续。所以说，总的来说这一段是讨论了原文一个核心的前提。

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 responsibility 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.
从本段起，连着的三个自然段就是按照原文逻辑链的顺序进行攻击和质疑。实际上，这三段对应的就是开头段的however之后的话。本段先质疑了人的本质的差异。论证方法是加条件后讨论。

以上三句话展开证明第一个分支观点，论证方法就是大名鼎鼎的三段论。加入常识性条件。即本身很注意安全的人配戴保护装置==〉配戴装置后就能少出事故==〉故本身注意安全才使得少出事故。

以上两句展开证明第二个分支观点，论证方法同样为大名鼎鼎的三段论，加上常识性条件。即街道公园本身不太安全==〉本身注意安全的人会选择安全的地方==〉来这里的人都是本身不太注意安全的。这里最后一点是我给补充上的，原文没有论证完全，但是基本的框架还是有的。

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.
攻击逻辑链的第二步，受伤的程度没有说清。这里的论证方法核心是质疑隐含假设，加条件后讨论。
加上人们晚上去滑的人多这个条件后讨论，最终削弱原命题。

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.
攻击逻辑联的第三步，质量好的不一定有用。核心论证方法为列举它因和提出建议。


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.
强调原文的初衷还是很好的，就好像两个人在那里辩论，范文把原文给说急了，范文怕原文不高兴了，就再哄哄他：别看我骂了这么多，你的初衷还是好的嘛！值得肯定。

范文看原文也不怎么哭了，于是最终还是委婉的表达了自己的建议。

最后补充论证自己的建议：论证方法为反证法。同时范文在最后吓唬一吓原文，告诉他不这样做的可怕的后果。

Reader Comment on 6
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt's fallacious reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
*that preventive and protective gear are not the same
*that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
*that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries
*that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the "6" range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored "6."

Benchmark 5
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.

Reader Comment on 5
This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, observing that it "indicates a possible relationship" but that its conclusion "is premature." It raises three central questions that, if answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument:

• What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters?
• What is the usefulness of protective or reflective gear in preventing or mitigating roller skating-related injuries?
• What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes?

The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. The paper does not analyze the argument as insightfully or develop the critique as fully as the typical "6" paper, but the clear organization, strong control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more than a score of "4."

=If any, if it happens at all

一般用常识性加条件

搭桥法

一般用常识性加条件

cyctUID：2728144

Argument test 1: Speed Limits in Forestville

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

“Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.”

Models from Practice Book

6分：
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.

第一句话指出原文存在逻辑问题，这里用的语言很简单。而不是北美范文中有时堆彻了一堆放之四海皆为准的无关痛痒的话。很明显，官方的意思是说这样的客套话一定要说，但是一定要用最简洁的形式来说，而同时那些具体问题具体分析性的语言则要详细的说明白，说清楚。

这个开头真的非常巧，因为他用一句话达到了两句话的效果，即同时复述题目并指出问题在哪，而没有像北美一样说结论是什么证据是什么证据再说不能支持结论。设想一下如果我们是考官的话看到这样的一个开头得到了一个什么信息呢：此考生已经完全读懂题目了，并且他对原文的逻辑顺序也已经掌握了。深一点层次来说：aw考试考得是我们的分析能力，这是重点。虽然官方说明也曾经强调理解原文很重要，但是终归理解能力并不是考试的重点。所以比较好的做法是：分析题目的脉络，写出分析性的概括。这里没有必要单独再复述题目了因为在分析中已经暗含了原文的信息。这里还有一点值得注意：为什么要在第二句话的最前面用comparison这个词呢，这是有讲究的！原文的论证核心就是比较，而这里将此词提到最前面一是说这是原文的逻辑关联，二是暗示我下面要做的就是围绕着此比较而进行的。有点类似于主题句的主干提前。这个词真的是令人发指的重要，看到后面你就知道了

However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.

几个范文，正文body首段质疑的都是作者让步的前提，那么这里的让步在哪里呢，开头段并没有提到阿。确实没有在第一段提到让步。但在最后一段的第一句，出现了让步（即since后面的两点理由）！让步说F这些市民可能是因为自己的利益或者保护自己的安全才建议取消限速的。那么这里的前提就是是F因为限速才使事故增加的。这一段将这个前提狠狠的质疑了一番。论证方法为列举他因

列举了三点他因，有两点值得注意：
1.这里作者前两点都没有详细展开，但这是不是意味着对于比较常识性的例子不用展开呢，不是！作者实际上已经通过定语同位语进行展开了！！比如younger, inexperienced,和elderly, unsafe就是互相补充阿，所以说我们在给出常识性的例子时，要注意通过修饰语的方式进行暗中的展开。判断我们证明的是否严谨是否充足，可以这样：完全只是用我们提供的信息来推，能不能推出最后的结果。
2.最后一点展开的则较为充分，这里看来是因为最后一点有点过于宽泛，必须要进行详细具体解释才行。更深一层次的来说作者对于例子的安排也是有详有略，给人错落有致的感觉，美。另外一点值得注意的就是，这三个论证中无一例外的都进行了EF的比较，照应了开头给出的comparison这个词，作者兑现了自己在开头的暗示。

这里作者的论证向前进了一步：前面提出了很多的他因，但光提出他因是不够的，我们心里一定要想着提出他因是干什么的。这里指出了他因究竟如何来利用，使得证明原文。即应该多考虑一下我所提出的他因，而不是限速。

这和上一句是相照应的，属于对比性的论证，刚才说F有了他因所以不是限速能解决，这里有说了E也许也是他因才使得情况稍好。整个段落是多么整齐的对仗阿！EF两地的对比无处不在，而又那么的工整！作者在开头第二句话的Comparison一词真的是统领全文的阿！正所谓指哪打哪。

A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased.
However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. Again, the demographics of the population are important. It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits.
Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight. Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.

逻辑链。本段有四个分论点，本来应该写四段的。
第一个攻击的就是6个月时间够不够。

攻击第二点，即天气的影响。对E的论证采用的是经典三段论，即天气差==〉人不出去==〉事故少。

第三点进行了攻击。即人口数量的问题。
先说E的人可能少。论证方法是加条件后讨论。
再说F的人可能多。论证方法是加条件后讨论。

最后攻击逻辑链的第四点，即人们活动的时间。

本段四个逻辑错误的安排顺序，时间==）天气==）人数==〉人的活动，看似无关，还是很有讲究的阿，这不正是从外在因素到内在因素吗

Overall,
the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. However,
before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.

since后面让步，原来让步在这呢！其实作者心里一直有数，只是没写出来。但是在正文body的第一段已经就其假设进行了讨论。我想我们不是作者这样的牛人，这样的让步还是很有必要在第一段体现出来的。

最后提出了建议。我们看到作者对于文章的立意把握得很好，要是换我们来写，可能会写限速怎么不好啊。而这文章中限速不管怎么说总是有好的一面，只是常识！所以作者的立意为：不是说限速不好，而是说要考虑全。

引申一下，我们一定要对文章的立意有个把握。文章无非就三种立意，一种是好的（就像这样的为了安全的（比如skate范文）），一种就是不好不坏的（就像为了利益的为了利润（什么挣钱多啊）），一种是不好的（就像有个说不应该取消安全带规定，还有诋毁某人的）。这三种立意的写法可是完全不同的阿！对于第一种，切记要委婉！最好就是避而不谈，而说应该考虑更全面。对于后面两种，就得狠点了，尤其是最后一种，就是谴责。

COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical." It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis. Alternatives mentioned are that

-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might
contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining
that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.

The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay. Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation. For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax. The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique. This is an impressive 6 paper.


5，
The argument above presents a sound case for arguing that if the region of Forestville wants to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should consider reducing the speed limit to what it was before the increase in speed limit took place 6 months previously. However, there are some intermediate steps that one could take before jumping to the conclusion that reducing the speed limit is the only way in which traffic accidents can be reduced.

First of all, I would examine the actual number of traffic accidents that occurred before and after the speed limit increase and compare this to the size of the region and its driving population. For example, if the Forestville region's driving population is 1 million people, and the traffic accidents for a 6-month period before the speed increase totaled 100, then the 15% increase would amount to an additional 16 traffic accidents, or 116 total. For a population of 1 million, there may be other solutions to this increase besides reducing the speed limit to what it was. (The comparison to the region of Elmsford would only be helpful if the regions driving demography is comparable in terms of size and scope.) A public education campaign emphasizing driver safety and safe driving techniques may suffice to reduce the number of traffic accidents. Especially considering that if the number of accidents relative to the population is somewhat small, it is a fairly safe driving population anyway.

In addition, I would consider lengthening the time of the study. Six months may be a relatively short period of time for which to study the rate of traffic accidents. Upon a closer examination of when the accidents occurred, one might ascertain that most of the driving accidents occurred within a month of raising the speed limit, but that there have been relatively few additional accidents since that first phase-in period. Lengthening the study to a one-year period would help adjust for any untypical statistics and paint a more accurate picture of the long-term affects of the speed limit increase.

I would also examine what else was occurring in the region during the period of the study. For example, was there a major highway construction project happening during this time which would have added to the unsafe nature of raod travel? Are there any alternative explanations for why the increase in traffic accidents could have occurred, or is the increase in speed limit the sole variable? Looking at the type of accidents that occurred, I would examine whether these are the types of car accidents one would expect from traveling at a faster speed to corroborate the cause and effect relationship.

COMMENTARY
As in the sample 6 essay, this writer sees some logic in assuming a connection between the higher speed limit in Forestville and the increase in auto accidents. Unlike the sample 6 essay, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed. The writer makes these points in the critique:

-- A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in
accidents is not as significant as it might seem.
-- A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the
problem.
-- A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major
conclusions.
-- Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.

Although each of these points is developed and sensibly supported, the critique is not sufficiently full to warrant a score of 6. The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions.
The occasional flaws (e.g., the somewhat garbled syntax in paragraph 3: ". . . time for which to study the rate . . .") do not detract from the overall strong quality of the critique. For all of these reasons, this response is strong but not outstanding, and thus merits a score of 5.

cyctUID：2728144

Argument test 5: University of Claria
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 find employment 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.

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?

首先承认UC的声望看起来确实不错，算是部分的同意了原文的观点，并简短的展开论证说事因为老师牛。随后便指出还有他因，但是并没有展开它因。(留到正文第一段来展开)

这里指出论据的不充足。实际上是在攻击原文的论据逻辑链。

给出了论证：提出两个问题进行质疑。

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.

BODY打头第一段与开头段第一句话对应，具体提出了他因。同时，还注意到所让步的内容（老师牛学校就牛）仍然是一致的。质疑：老师牛，就能提供牛的教育吗？
一针见血的指出不是这么回事。

具体论证：还有其他的因素决定教育的水平的。论证方法为列举他因。这里的论证给人的感觉就是列的东西多，而且细。

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? 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?

这里对于原文中逻辑链中的论据不足进行证明。实际上就是和开头段后两句话（只有两个系不够）相对应，进一步展开进行证明原文的论据怎么不充分，我们要全面评估UC除了只知道提供的两个系的信息外还要知道哪些。

这里属于复述原文，立好靶子做好准备开始攻击。

一开始攻击就一连问了十几个问题，显得很雄辩，这里问了这么多问题，核心只有一个，学校老师学生之间三角关系到底怎么样。具体论证是先说师生关系（老师对待学生怎么样，学生对待老师怎么样），再说学校和学生（学校给学生提供了哪些便利），最后说学校和老师和学生的关系（老师通过学校为了提高给学生的教育提出了什么意见么）.可以说是层层递进，还是很有章法的！论证手法为列举他因。

What about that 75% employment record? Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do. A more specific statement about the employability of students from this University is needed in order to
make the argument forceful.

这里质疑了逻辑链中的另一个论据，即毕业生找工作的数据也能推出学校牛。核心论证方法为质疑假设，提出建议。

这里论证方法为质疑假设（是否是工作在喜欢的专业），我观察到这里并没有给出质疑后的结果的展开。也许作者认为展开后的结果是不言而喻的所以就不再展开细说了。这就是作者大牛之处，他懂得驾驭知道什么地方说到多少就够了，所以越是大牛的文章就越是短。这个文章就很短。而对于我们来说，它的论证思路是一定要接受，但是为了保险起见，还是把每个论点发展完全比较好，比如在这里加上：要是他们不在自己的最喜欢专业工作，说明他们还是没有足够的实力让自己喜欢的工作接受自己，从而说明母校的教育也没有那么牛啊。我们论证的越充分，显然就越有把握拿高分。

提出了建议，使得论证更有力。

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.

这篇文章在最后没有肯定原文的初衷，而是不留情面的批评！这是要看具体题目的，像这样的广告，本来就没有多么高尚的目的。而上一篇范文人家不管逻辑有多差，但人家总是抱着善良的一颗心，为了保护大家的生命安全啊！所以说，我们对于原命题的立意心里要有数。

最后还是提出了整体的宏观的建议改进意见。

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 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, distinguished by impressive diction ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication. For all of these reasons, the essay earns a 6.

cyctUID：2728144

突然发现ETS范文真的非常好，而且和我们平时准备的思路不太一样，计划再看一遍，思路和语言每段都吃透

cyctUID：2728144

第一部分：Overview of the Analytical Writing Section

Issue：asks you to discuss the issue from any perspective(s) you wish, so long as you provide relevant reasons and examples to explain and support your views.
Issue的性质就是让我们从任何的观点出发都可以，只要能支持观点。看来官方并不关注我们如何切入问题，关键关心的是我们如何自圆其说。

Argument：it requires you to critique a given argument by discussing how well reasoned you find it. You will need to consider the logical soundness of the argument rather than to agree or disagree with the position it presents.
Argument 要求我们写的文章并不是一味的批评，而是全面的评估。你无需赞同或否定其中立场。

The two tasks are complementary in that one requires you to construct your own argument by taking a position and providing evidence supporting your views on the issue, whereas the other requires you to critique someone else's argument by assessing its claims and evaluating the evidence it provides.
官方看来，i和a这两部分是非常紧密联系的，这和我们通常的认识不太一样。实际上，它们两者是完全的一个整体。首先写出我们自己的issue，然后再看别人的argue的漏洞。能够看到这一点是很重要的，它告诉我们，其实arguement就是ETS模仿小弱人写的超短的issue，让我们给评分写个报告而已。大家总是抱怨ets给的范文太少，通过这段话我们可以理会到，其实这两百多个argue不正是ets原汁原味的issue范文吗，尽管错误多多，但是其论证结构，语言方面还是有很多可取的地方。另一方面，可以看出，在ETS看来，无论是argue还是issue，核心都是position和evidence，显然这是需要在我们的文中占据很大篇幅的

第二部分：Preparing for the Analytical Writing Section

It is important to review the skills measured,how the section is scored, scoring guides and score level descriptions, sample topics, scored sample essay responses, and reader commentary. You might find it helpful to review the Issue and Argument pools.
这是官方给出的复习方案，很多人可能觉得没什么大不了的。但是这暗示我们这样的一个步骤是最有效率的，也应该是最靠谱的。是复习的源头。毕竟这是游戏制定者的建议。

The topics in the analytical writing section relate to a broad range of subjects—from the fine arts andhumanities to the social and physical sciences—but no topic requires specific content knowledge. In fact,each topic has been field-tested to ensure that it possesses several important characteristics, including thefollowing:

• GRE test takers, regardless of their field of study or special interests, understood the topic andcould easily discuss it.
• The topic elicited the kinds of complex thinking and persuasive writing that university faculty
consider important for success in graduate school.

• The responses were varied in content and in the way the writers developed their
ideas.
很显然，这里强调了官方是不认可任何模版的，就是说，并不是说模版上的格式就是真理，只要我们能为论证服务，一切的格式都是可以的，官方并没有设置一个限制。这一点从北美范文上的经常出现的奇怪格式可以印证，北美先生不是想让我们来模仿他的奇怪格式，而是想告诉我们格式可以作者而变，没有定式。

第三部分：Test-Taking Strategies for the Analytical Writing Section

Within the 45-minute time limit for the Issue task, you will need to allow sufficient time to choose one of the two topics, think about the issue you've chosen, plan a response, and compose your essay. Within the 30-minute time limit for the Argument task, you will need to allow sufficient time to analyze the argument, plan a critique, and compose your response.
我记得前一段时间我曾经在坛子上问过这样的问题，就是从理论上来说，给定的时间究竟够不够分析的？可以看出，官方认为，时间是足够分析加构思的，这一点恐怕很多人不同意，会说我们不是美国人。但是，这至少给我们提供了一个信心，就是官方认为考场上现场分析就够了，官方认为这是正常人可以做到的。这样的话，我们可以练习在模考时就拿来一个从没见过的分析过的题目，在指定的时间内现场分析，现场构思。我想这是ETS给我们指出的路。要知道，提前准备的痕迹是可以轻易看出来的。

You might want to replenish your supply of scratch paper during each scheduled break
官方居然认为草稿纸可能不够用！这暗示着，他希望我们充分利用这纸。那么究竟怎么用，后面的章节会给出介绍。

第四部分：How the Analytical Writing Section is Scored

readers do not separate the response into component parts and award a certain number of points for a particular criterion or element such as ideas, organization, sentence structure, or language. Instead, readers assign scores based on the overall quality of the response, considering all of its characteristics in an integrated way.
这段话是说要从整体入手来评分。实际上，他在暗示着我们ideas, organization, sentence structure, language这四大点是我们需要注意的地方。进一步的，他在暗示着没有一个清晰的标准，那么只要reader觉得你牛，你就牛，没有道理可讲的。试想一下，写一个到处都是俗例子俗语言的文章，尽管看上去很牛，但是reader会发自内心的觉得我们牛吗？再进一步，
他在暗示着这四项即使不是每一项都很出色，但是总体很好也是可以高分的，这就需要我们至少有一项很出色，可以弥补其他的不足。如果一定要我们有一项很出色
的话，那么我们选那个呢，从他们的排的顺序也可以看得出来，很显然ideas! 毕竟这是Analytical Writing。
each response is scored by two readers。The scores given for the two tasks are then averaged for a final reported score。Your essay responses on the analytical writing section will be reviewed by ETS essay-similarity-detection software and by experienced essay readers during the scoring process
大家一直关心阅卷流程，这里说的很清楚：全人工阅卷，分数完全由人决定。另一方面，关于雷同，则是在雷同探测器和阅卷人的双重监督下。
雷同探测器，这里用的词是will，而不是might，所以说所有的文章都会被探测一遍。这并不难啊，现在科技这么发达，不过是转眼一瞬间的功夫。而如果阅卷人觉得是抄的，那很有可能就给个低分。举个例子：很多准备的很好、用大段北美的同学的文章，即便通过语言变化可以逃脱雷同探测器的摩爪，但是一个有经验的阅卷人肯定可以看出是从北美上来的，那么他也许没有确凿的证据判雷同，但是他绝对有权力给个低分。

In light of the high value placed on independent intellectual activity within United States graduate schools and universities
看得出来，这里强调的是独立，那么，我们是否能在文章中充分展示出独立，就决定了能否得到官方的亲睐。很明显，有些文章虽然写得很好，但是一看就是非独立搞出来的，再好也没有用阿。人家不会认同的。


ETS reserves the right to cancel test scores of any test taker when there is substantial evidence that an essay response
这里说了，如果有确凿的证据就会取消成绩。那么，如果没有确凿的证据呢？这里隐含了，没有确凿的证据的时候，不会取消，但是低分是难免的。


text that is substantially similar to that found in one or more other GRE essay responses;
quoting or paraphrasing, without attribution,
language or ideas that appear in published or unpublished sources;
unacknowledged use of work that has been produced through collaboration with others without citation of the contribution of others;
essays that are submitted as work of the examinee when the ideas or words have, in fact, been borrowed from elsewhere or prepared by another person.
大家总是在问：究竟什么才算雷同？这里给出了最权威的答案。咋一看上去似乎，所有的不加注释的引用都是要被判雷同的，似乎很严格，似乎让人很绝望，没救了好象。
但是紧接着后面就给出了下面一段话：
When one or more of the above circumstances occurs, your essay text, in ETS’s professional judgment, does not reflect the independent, analytical writing skills that this test seeks to measure.
原来，官方关心的是能都够代表独立分析思考的雷同，刚才的那四句的限制其实是ETS在判雷同时给自己找的退路（有了这样的限制随便一个文章它都可以说是雷同了），只要ETS能够从文中清晰的看到我们独立思考的东西就决不会是雷同。
比如说argue中的一些闪光句型，闪光用词尽管是抄来的，但是并不能阻碍阅卷人看到我们真实的分析能力，所以是尽可以用的。这也印证了广为流传的关于argue绝少被判雷同的情况。
那么什么会影响ETS判断我们真实的能力呢，issue中的代表观点的句子以及论据支持。人家就是要看看我们是怎么分析的，怎么立论怎么支持，如果我们不能让他们看到，那很显然就是要被判的。
另一方面我们注意到，官方说的是ideas or words，也是ETS给自己找的退路，很显然，别人的观点如果我们改一下语言，但是肯定还是逃脱不了被判，因为idea雷同了。
总结一下：避免雷同的核心战略就是要让阅卷人通过试卷能够看到我们真实的思想。每个人的思想都是不同的，如果他只看到了大路货的话，被判是不可避免的。
ETS已经找够了足够的退路判任何一篇它想判的文章为雷同。怎么办呢？思考吧同学们！即使没有那么深刻，只要是自己的都没有任何危险啊。


Test takers whose scores are cancelled will forfeit their test fees and must pay to take the entire GRE General Test again at a future administration. No record of the score cancellations, or the reason for cancellation, will appear on their future score reports sent to colleges and universities.
人家只是想找到我们身上的分析能力，如果雷同了只能说明没找到，不能说明没有。所以这段话我认为再次向我们强调了他们究竟是想通过这样的一个考试达到什么目的：就是想寻找我们身上的独立分析能力。那就展示给人家呗。

cyctUID：2728144

The "Analyze an Argument" task assesses your ability to understand, analyze, and evaluate arguments and
to clearly convey your analysis in writing.

Your task is to discuss the logical soundness of the author's case by critically examining
the line
of reasoning and the use of evidence.

核心论证方法思考：
• What claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions does the argument make?
• What alternative explanations and counterexamples can I think of?
• What additional evidence might weaken or strengthen the claims?
• What changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound?
  源文档 <http://www.ets.org/gre/general/prepare/tips/index.html>
  
  

读题注意事项

1、在拿到题目后应该找出这些：
• what is offered as evidence, support, or proof
论据，
• what is explicitly stated, claimed, or concluded
结论，
• what is assumed or supposed, perhaps without justification or proof
推理过程中的未加证明的假设
• what is not stated, but necessarily follows from what is stated
论据中的潜在后果。

总结一下：即论据，结论，推理过程中的未加证明的假设，论据中的潜在后果。这四点都是需要我们尽量展示在第一段里面的。

2、同时，还要考虑原题目中的逻辑链：
In addition, you should consider the structure of the argument—the way in which these elements are linked
together to form a line of reasoning; that is, you should recognize the separate,
在这过程中更重要的是： sometimes implicit steps in
the thinking process and consider whether the movement from each one to the next is logically sound.
这是我们攻击的要点，尤其是隐含的逻辑步骤。In
tracing this line, look for transition
words and phrases that suggest that the author is attempting to make a
logical connection (e.g., however, thus, therefore, evidently, hence, in conclusion).
用一些连接词来帮助我们识别作者的逻辑链。

3、写作时，这才是ETS想要的文章：
An important part of performing well on the Argument task is remembering what you are not being asked
to do. You are not being asked to discuss whether the statements in the argument are true or accurate;
instead, you are being asked whether conclusions and inferences are validly drawn from the statements.
You are not being asked to agree or disagree with the position stated; instead, you are being asked to
comment on the thinking that underlies the position stated. You are not being asked to express your own
views on the subject being discussed (as you were in the Issue task); instead, you are being asked to
evaluate the logical soundness of an argument of another writer and, in doing so, to demonstrate the critical
thinking, perceptive reading, and analytical writing skills that university faculty
consider important for
success in graduate school.
1 结论和推断是否有效
2 评论的构成立场的论据
3 评价Argu的逻辑是否有力
展示你的批判性思维、有见解的阅读能力和分析性写作能力

4、关于写作中的
逻辑问题
举例
For instance, in one topic an elementary school principal might conclude that the new playground equipment has improved student attendance because absentee rates have declined since it was installed.
论证的思路为：
（1）意识到存在它因
you will simply need to see that the principal has committed the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy; you will simply need to see that there are other possible explanations for the improved attendance,
（2）提供具体的它因
to offer some common-sense examples,
（3）从结论考虑，怎样才能使论证完整有力，即(适度地站在作者角度）如何改进and perhaps to suggest what would be necessary to verify the conclusion. For instance, absentee rates might have decreased because the climate was mild. This would have to be ruled out in order for 为了 the principal’s conclusion to be valid.

5、官方认为的有几个key concepts需要解释，
• alternative explanation—a possible competing version of what might have caused the events in
  question; an alternative explanation undercuts or qualifies the original explanation because it too
  can account for the observed facts
  他因质疑：既可以加强也可以减弱原来的解释
• analysis—the process of breaking something (e.g., an argument) down into its component parts in
  order to understand how they work together to make up the whole; also a presentation, usually in
  writing, of the results of this process
  其中analysis这个词的解释很重要， 说白了，就是把原题中的三段式论证给打拆开，逐一地进行分析。同样的analytical writing的核心也就是拆开原命题，分成1串逻辑链，然后一部分一部分地讨论。
• argument—a claim or a set of claims with reasons and evidence offered as support; a line of
  reasoning meant to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of something
• assumption—a belief, often unstated or unexamined, that someone must hold in order to maintain
  a particular position; something that is taken for granted but that must be true in order for the
  conclusion to be true
• conclusion—the end point reached by a line of reasoning, valid if the reasoning is sound; the
  resulting assertion
• counterexample—an example, real or hypothetical, that refutes or disproves a statement in the
  argument
  6、核心论证方法：
  找出隐含假设（并质疑）
  identify as many of its claims, conclusions, and underlying assumptions as possible；
  寻找它因和寻找反例
  think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can；
  加条件后讨论
  think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims；常识性条件
  提出改进方案
  ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound。
  
  同学们以上四点是核心论证方法！！！所有的满分范文中都用到了这四种方法。其中，在论证时需要：think of what additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims。这里重要的是加上一个常识性条件后，能意识到，有些情况，是支持原命题的。这一点至关重要，我们是讨论，要求同存异，而不是一味的批驳。
  
  7、如何处理数字、百分比和统计
  1.对于数字：是否具有代表性，找他因
  Instead you should evaluate these as
  evidence that is intended to support the conclusion. In the example above, the conclusion is that a
  community event has become less popular. You should ask yourself: does the
  difference between 100
  people and 150 people support that conclusion? Note that, in this case, there are other possible
  explanations; for example, the weather might have been much worse this year, this year's event might have
  been held at an inconvenient time, the cost of the event might have gone up this year, or there might have
  been another popular event this year at the same time.
  2.对于百分比：看其基数
  percentages might support or weaken a conclusion depending on what actual numbers the percentages
  represent. Consider the claim that the drama club at a school deserves more funding because its
  membership has increased by 100 percent. This 100 percent increase could be significant if there had been
  100 members and now there are 200 members, whereas the increase would be much less significant if there
  had been 5 members and now there are 10
  
  8、满分作文的模式
  some essays at the
  6 score level that begin by briefly summarizing the argument and then explicitly stating and developing the
  main points of the critique.
  先复述题目，然后清晰的表明观点，然后发展。
  1.
  The readers know that a writer can earn a high score by analyzing and
  developing several points in a critique
  2.
  or by identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that
  critique extensively.
  
  9、高分作文的攻击顺序
  This means using as many or as few paragraphs as you consider appropriate
  for your critique—for example, creating a new paragraph when your discussion shifts to a new point of
  analysis.
  
  
  1.You might want to organize your critique around the organization of the argument itself,
  discussing the argument line by line.
  
  2.Or you might want to first point out a central questionable
  assumption and then move on to discuss related flaws
  in the argument's line of reasoning.
  
  这里给出了两种攻击顺序，根据我读了一个多月awintro的经验来看，一般官方给出的建议总是越靠后的越好越nb，正如在官方推荐issue观点的时候总是把平衡观点放在最后。所以这里比较好的方案是先质疑一个核心的假设，然后再按照原文逻辑来搞。
  Similarly, you
  might want to use examples if they help illustrate an important point in your critique or move your
  discussion forward (remember, however, that, in terms of your ability to perform the Argument task
  effectively, it is your critical thinking and analytical writing, not your ability to come up with examples,
  that is being assessed). 注意不是让你想例子，而是考察你的批判性思考和分析性写作能力
  What matters is not the form the response takes, but how insightfully you analyze
  the argument and how articulately you communicate your analysis to academic readers within the context
  of the task.
  最重要的不是你回答的形式而是怎么样把你的分析深刻而又清楚，内容充实地表达给你的学术考官看
  

6分作文标准:
A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical paper in this category
• clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully
• develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions
• effectively supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates control of language, including appropriate word choice and sentence variety
• demonstrates facility with the conventions (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written English but may have minor errors

cyctUID：2728144

Argument test 3: Smile Bright

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth. Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life. In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently. Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

原文逻辑顺序：用SB的最易带牙套==〉早用比晚用SB的易带牙套，每天用两次SB的更易带牙套==〉想不带牙套就不用SB。

6、
The argument contains several facets that are questionable.

First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. I will discuss each of these facets in turn.

段首句指出存在问题，同样没有过多的修饰，简洁明快。使文章迅速转移到后面的实质性分析。

指出第一个问题是调查类问题，并具体说出了是样本可信度和样本代表性，实际上这和后面的论证是对应的。
指出第二个问题，是因果关系。
指出第三个问题，没有提出上面因果关系的他因。

第一段简洁明了，三个攻击点统领下面三段。这里对原文的复述似乎并不详细。因为原文的逻辑链很简单，作者不用向我们证明他读懂了，我们也知道他肯定读懂了。不像第五个范文那样，读个原题就得半天。实际上，这里的重点放在了后面的分析上，同时在后面的分析中也包含了复述原题中的每一个条件。

In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted.

If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer.

One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people.


In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the survey respondents old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.

第一点：考虑调查类问题。分为两个分支论点，一个是有倾向的问题，一个是被调查者的代表性。

1.这里论证是否问卷中有loaded倾向问题，方法为加条件后讨论。

2.这里论证被调查者的代表性。方法还是加条件后讨论，三段式论证。
这又是典型的三段式论证：如果只是个别医生的个别病人==〉有可能归因于是个别现象==〉得到的结论无法推广到整体。

看到这里，一下子就想起了新东方，这正是他们极力推荐的层层让步式论证，后面一段也是这样的论证。论证方法为列举他因。
举了两个他因，注意到这里用的是问句，官方范文是很喜欢用问句的。

Even if one accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable.

The argument assumes that the correlation between the use of SMILEBRIGHT and capped teeth means that SMILE BRIGHT causes the need for capped teeth.

But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.

In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that people who already have capped teeth might prefer SMILEBRIGHT as a toothpaste because it works better on capped teeth.

作了一下让步，开始攻击因果关系不成立。

这里就复述题目了，同时也是立起靶子，等待攻击。

指出没有证据显示有因果关系。先打拆开关系。

这里举出了个他因，甚至有点想逆转原来的因果关系的意思，从而使已经打拆开的因果关系分的更加清楚。

Finally, the argument's author fails to rule out alternative explanations.

For instance, people who brush their teeth more than twice a day might be those who are prone to the need to have their teeth capped.

It might also be the case that starting with SMILEBRIGHT early in life damages the teeth so that capped teeth will be needed later.

It also might be the case that SMILEBRIGHT users tend to be the kind of people who are excessively concerned with the appearance of their teeth, perhaps theyre actors, and so are the kind of people who might, sooner or later, want to have their teeth capped anyway.

这里继续打拆上一段打开的因果关系，提出了他因，就像往伤口上撒一把盐。打个比方，女生家长为了不让女儿和一个男生在一起，就先把他两个给隔离起来，然后最狠的就是，给那个男生找一个巨棒巨棒的新女朋友。

举出第一种可能性。Weak结论（一天两次更易带牙套）。
举出第二种可能性。Strengthen原结论（早用早带牙套）
举出第三种可能。论证方法为加条件后讨论，讨论采用三段式。

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logocal at first, has several flaws as discussed above.

The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship -- that using the toothpaste actually causes the need for capped teeth.

It could be further improved by ruling out alternative explanations for the supposed causal relationship.

这句话很经典，摸版性很强。

给出第一条建议是针对没有因果关系的那段的。
给出的第二条建议是针对因果关系中提供他因的那段。

总的来看，这里的提建议的方式以及位置都和新东方和北美范文很像。最后，我们发现这文章所指出的逻辑错误都是大错误，那种脊梁骨似的错误，而对于小错误，比如他们report则不予讨论，看得出来，官方的意思是，无论什么文章，都最优先挑核心逻辑链中的重点错误，小错误能挑出来更好，但没有也没关系，前提是大错误都挑出来了并且论证充分。本文与前面的文章的差别之处就在于，很难找到文章的中心思想，只是罗列了错误并独立的分析，过于平淡，而没有对于文章的核心错误的把握。

COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable." The author then develops the critique around three main points:

-- the reliability and generalizability of the survey results are open to question;
-- the argument assumes that a correlation amounts to a causal relationship; and
-- there are alternative explanations for the facts uncovered by the survey.

Each of these points is analyzed insightfully and in great detail.

The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing. The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs. The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt. Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique. For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.