|
啊啦啦关键时刻你咋不早吼我过来 pluka同学要顶住呀 看看pressing得合不合理吧~！合理的话保持现有状态就OK TOPIC: ARGUMENT210 - The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.
"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."
WORDS: 459 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2010-2-24 14:35:26
突然感觉手生，前天就开始……突然觉得阿狗的感觉又不对了。之前写34，三遍了才勉强合格=====就要考试了啊啊啊啊啊啊。pressing。
The author asserts that the introduction of robots to factories can improve the output and enhance the morale of workers. However, the evidence he cites fails to substantiate the conclusion. 第一段，先看看这个帖子啦。 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=920961&highlight irvine666大叔认为开头应该还原原文的逻辑，不能只用一行字儿。这个帖子对俺的影响甚大= = 当然也有很强很牛的前辈在另一篇帖子中说过，argument在前面的开头段落应该尽可能地简单。两伙人不相上下，各执一词。 然而俺头一次考试的时候非常悲剧地使用了光速入题的短开头，结果华丽三分儿。到底怎样开头由你抉择，但是个人建议在开头将原文脉络好生理清。因为……irvine666的头像更美……
Primarily, ignoring the conspicuous disparity between the situation of the project of outerspace（outer space） and that of the ground, the author presumptuously assumes that robots that are functioning well can be equally efficient in performing in the factory（这个小半句实际有个小问题。按照你这句话的说法，作者认为的是【那些20年前上过天的机器人儿们都应该被拿下来放在工厂里继续干活】，而其实作者认为的是【因为20年前机器人能干这个活所以今天机器人能干那个活儿】。区别很微妙……不过还是表达不清！）. Common sense informes（informs） me that highly possibly（还是highly possible比较顺当）, the effecacy（efficacy是I不是E！） of such robots can be exhibited only in the outerspace. For example, while a robot may function well in the extreme low temperature in the earth orbit, it may burn on the ground factory where the heat can（+be） accumulated to （+a）greater extent. The gravity, too, may add to demerits of the performance of the robot on the earth. Without factoring in the significant distinctions, the author's assertion appears irrational.（不合适，不合适~你一直在举地面上的缺点，但是说实话太空中也有辐射呀不知道从哪儿飞来的陨石呀等等小打小闹的毛病，相比之下地球上【引力的作用】这些毛病简直不是毛病……个人认为最重要的机器人暂时不能拿来大量替代工人的原因……当然是因为太贵啦！放着这样重要的大毛病不挑，而跑去找那些可能被反驳回来的小毛病，你一定是慌了。）
（等一下……等一下。看了第二段的TS，觉得整个文章组织的TS们排列得非常奇怪。换言之，有点儿没层次。第一段，不管再怎么说，是一个天上和地上的对比，而你的一切攻击点落在了efficiency上面。简单地说，第一段，efficiency，第二段，output，第三段，profit。而我们来看看原文当中这三个词的关系，可能与你行文的脉络不大一样。文章可能是这样分的： 一、天上地下一个样：1.effectively, 2.efficiently, 3.and profitably 二、机器人儿就是好：1.absenteeism, 2.output, 3.morale. 呃回到你的作文，第一段不应该落脚在efficiency上而应该把这三个玩意儿都带出来，而absenteeism则变成了一段当中的一个小不点儿，不仔细找都找不着。当然三四段写的主要是【二】的【2，3】两部分。这里倒是无遗漏。 那么为啥会出现这么多问题呢？胡乱猜测一下，拿到题目你一定就开始狂飙了。首段就是证明。 事实上，首段写得简略是可以，但那一定是一个返璞归真的境地。在刚刚下手练的时候儿，把开头写得详细一些、更贴近原文的逻辑一些，能够让你更快地找到后面的感觉。而当你觉得需要让后面的论述更加丰满的时候，再前轻后重一些，可能会更好。不管怎么说，把文章说得更加圆润动人是最终目的。）
The author claims that as robots seldom err, the factories can augment their output. However, he fails to consider that though machines can conduct better according to the strict instruction and presettings（这半句完全不懂啥意思。虽然知道你要表达啥，但是光看前半句我还是可耻地一头雾水了……）（presetting无复数）, it（应该是they吧） may be too stiff and obedient to cope with possible emergencies or risks flexibily（flexibly） and properly.（强烈要求这里加一个稍微具体化一丁点儿的实际例子。否则下面说的catastrophe也好，上面说的那些flexibility也好，都没有一个现实的对应点，显得突兀空乏。） Perhaps, the lost of those catastrophes may offset the benefit of machines and leads to irreversible consequences.（知道你写得慢写不出来。那也得把话说圆了！） Human workers, on the contrary, may be relatively more skillful and dextrous in dealing with emergencies and ensures the normal function of the factory.（看完这一段之后，觉得话还有点儿没说到点子上。实际上你如果再加上一句可能就好了：流水生产作业的情况下，让一个专门儿解决复杂故障的机器人去包揽工作，只能让少数的极其精密的工序得以完成。换言之除了极少数精密作业的行当之外，机器人没法让总产量提升多少。最后再落回来。） It is too hasty for the author to deny the ability of human workers and relies on the mechanical performances.
As for the profit, the author overlooks the various potential expendings（expending无复数！） resulted from the introduction of robots. First, the purchase of machines（问题来了。Machines并不完全等于robots。提出一个新概念，就要说明白它到底是怎么来的。） and corresponding re-arrangement of the factory may consume a large chunk of budget. As the robots may require （+a）specific environment to perform（加上in）, the original processing method may need to be tranformed（transformed漏S！） to a large extent（渐渐地你开始用脑补来替代写作啦。消灭脑补成分！话渐渐都不清楚了）. Also, though robots never get sick as human workers do, they get damages and requires（require单复对应！） regular maintanence（maintenance先E后A！）, which may further increase the cost of factories. While Can the expected revenue compensate the dramatic expenditure? The author may need to ponder carefully before rushing to the conclusion.
The assumption that workers' morale can be enhanced also fails to be verified. The author asserts that employees can shift to more interesting tasks as they wish, yet common sense will tell that as robots can meet the demand of factories, a large amount of workers may become（+the） redundancy （随着文章的进行我们看到pluka选手出现了一些低级语法错误比如这个become redundancy！） and thus be downsized（downsize的不是员工们而是公司呀！）. Obviously, it would be absurd to claim that they will be happy.
In sum, the author mistakenly confuses the nature of workings in the outerspace and the factory, ignores the significant cost and fallaciously assumes workers' attitudes. He need（needs） more informations and studies to verify or amend his conclusion.
结尾懒得吐槽= = | 
发表于 2010-2-24 14:51:09
0
转发
签到领寄托币
GO
