kejan(追梦~人)【1006备考日志】 基础再差也得坚持

kejanUID: 2606891

悲剧的CET6，没过，在这种时候，无疑是一个重大的 打击，不禁质疑自己“连CET都能欺负你，你拿什么去降服GRE”……
下午不自觉的，放下了手中的活，在寄托上寻找着前辈的经验，眼里看着，心里想着，突然想起这样一句话：
Do not, for one repulse, forgo the purpose that you resolved to effort.
                                                                                                                 ---Shakespeare


为了梦想，永不放弃!

kejanUID: 2606891

今天开始写下我的1006备考日志【3月31日机考】
3.3
15篇A-提纲  
看5篇北美范文A
1篇A全文

StefanaUID: 2143510

加油
话说我当年的CET6也很悲剧。。
那天还肚子疼

CET算啥
呵呵
过了就得了

我一个好朋友CET6还考了2次呢
GRE却一样很牛啊

有付出就有收获的
LZ加油
BLESS~

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

LZ,我也很差的基础，一样选择考G，坚持到底就是胜利，不管结果如何我们曾经努力过

kejanUID: 2606891

3.4
15篇A提纲
看5篇北美范文A
1篇A全文
10篇I提纲

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

关于基础，ETS的评分标准仅供参考：

==================================
Score 6
-----------------------------------------------------
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
==================================


==================================
Score 5
-----------------------------------------------------
A 5 paper presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed
critique of the argument and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical paper in this category
• clearly identifies important features of the
argument and analyzes them in a generally
perceptive way
• develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically,
and connects them with appropriate transitions
• sensibly supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates control of language, including
appropriate word choice and sentence variety
• demonstrates facility with the conventions of
standard written English but may have minor
errors
==================================

==================================
Score 4
-----------------------------------------------------
A 4 paper presents a competent critique of the argument and
conveys meaning adequately.
A typical paper in this category
• identifies and analyzes important features of the
argument
• develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but
may not connect them with transitions
• supports the main points of the critique
• demonstrates sufficient control of language to
express ideas with reasonable clarity
• generally demonstrates control of the conventions
of standard written English but may have some
errors
==================================

==================================
Score 3
-----------------------------------------------------
A 3 paper demonstrates some competence in its critique of
the argument and in conveying meaning but is obviously
flawed.
A typical paper in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of
the following characteristics:
• does not identify or analyze most of the important
features of the argument, although some analysis
of the argument is present
• mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters,
or reasons poorly
• is limited in the logical development and
organization of ideas
• offers support of little relevance and value for
points of the critique
• lacks clarity in expressing ideas
• contains occasional major errors or frequent
minor errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that
can interfere with meaning
==================================

==================================
Score 2
-----------------------------------------------------
A 2 paper demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical
writing.
A typical paper in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of
the following characteristics:
• does not present a critique based on logical
analysis, but may instead present the writer's own
views on the subject
• does not develop ideas, or is disorganized and
illogical
• provides little, if any, relevant or reasonable
support
• has serious problems in the use of language and in
sentence structure that frequently interfere with
meaning
• contains serious errors in grammar, usage, or
mechanics that frequently obscure meaning
==================================

==================================
Score 1
-----------------------------------------------------
A 1 paper demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in both
analysis AND writing .
A typical paper in this category exhibits MORE THAN ONE
of the following characteristics:
• provides little or no evidence of the ability to
understand and analyze the argument
• provides little or no evidence of the ability to
develop an organized response
• has severe problems in language and sentence
structure that persistently interfere with meaning
• contains pervasive errors in grammar, usage, or
mechanics that result in incoherence
==================================

==================================
Score 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Off topic, in a foreign language, merely copies the topic,
consists of only keystroke characters, or is illegible, blank, or
nonverbal.
==================================

==================================
NS
-----------------------------------------------------
Blank
==================================

kejanUID: 2606891

这是我的第一篇阿狗，文章已已经对照着北美范文的修改过一次了（最初的还有很多拼写错误）。可还是很差，现在放在这里，请好心人帮我看看，我这样修改有什么问题
TOPIC: ARGUMENT140 - The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.

"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college."
WORDS: 432          TIME: 01:30:19          DATE: 2010/3/3 16:06:48

In this report, an Elm City University committee recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To support her recommendation the committee cites that Thomas’ classes are among the University’s most popular and that last two years the amount of grant money she attracted to the University exceeded her $50.000 salary. The committee argues further that unless the University implement its recommendation Thomas is likely to defect to another school. This argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands

First, the committee assumes unfairly that Thomas’s effectiveness as a teacher lead to the popularity of her classes. Yet, this might not be the case, for a variety of possible reasons. Perhaps, the classes she teachers are requirements of all science students. Or perhaps Thomas is a lenient grader. Without ruling out all such possibilities, the committee could not be hastily to conclude that Professor Thomas is an effective teacher and therefore should be granted a raise and a promotion.

Secondly, even if last two years the amount of grant money Thomas attracted to the university surpassed her salary, the committee offers no evidence that this status will continue in future.It is entirely possible that the research grants will decrease in days of come, for the reason that Professor Thomas has made little academic breakthrough during her last researches. Hence, the committee would be ridiculous to conclude that Professor Thomas deserves the $10,000 raise.

Thirdly, even assuming that Professor Thomas is an excellent professor, the committee provides no evidence that she will be a qualified Department Chairperson. Perhaps, she will be annoyed about various piffling matters and in turn reflects her teaching quality. In addition, Elm City University will lose a distinction professor and add a valueless Chairperson.Thus, without taking into account these likelihoods, the committee could not convince me that Professor Thomas deserve the promotion.

Finally, even assuming that Professor Thomas is an excellent professor with an outstanding research capacity and is fit for the chairperson, no evidence proved in the argument implies that Professor Thomas is likely to leave Elm City University for another college. It is not only the salary and the position but also many other factors--such as the research environment-- the university provides that attract her. Even if Professor Thomas will leave, it will be also because of other reasons.

In sum, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the committee must assure me that Professor Thomas's effectiveness as a teacher leads to the popularity of her classes and that Thomas will still receive more or as much research grants as that she has gained during the last two years in the foreseeable future. The committee must also provider dear evidence for its fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University.

kejanUID: 2606891

这同样是阿狗140篇，今天又花了将近5小时把文章又改了一遍[基础实在太差]，其中借鉴了很多前辈的思想、语句、结构甚至段落（其实说来惭愧，说借鉴只是好听罢了，说真的，很多都感觉是拿来主义，很多东西要想自己写出了来，还要很长路要走）。【文章中有些地方是直接拿来的，不好意思，忘记留下出处的作者了，说声不好意思，直接用你们的语言了，除此之外还声谢谢】
我想问一下朋友们，文章这样修改有什么问题，有什么地发需要注意的，以后应该怎样去修改自己的文章。
In this report, an Elm City University committee recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To support her recommendation the committee cites that Thomas’ classes are among the University’s most popular and that last two years the amount of grant money she attracted to the University exceeded her $50.000 salary. The committee argues further that unless the University implement its recommendation Thomas is likely to defect to another school. Yet, his recommendation is not well reasoned only for his inadequate argument.
First, the author affirmed Professor Thomas as an excellent teacher because of her largest classes at the university. In fact, the author made a wrong logical relationship between the scale of the classes and the popularity among students. In the condition that classes taught by Professor Thomas are most basic curriculum and are required to be taken by all the students, no matter whether Professor Thomas is popular by her classes or not, she can have the largest scale of the classes by all means. So we can not sure about the popularity of Professor Thomas among students only by the scale of her classes let alone her effectiveness as a teacher.

Secondly, even if last two years the amount of grant money Thomas attracted to the university surpassed her salary, the committee offers no evidence that this status will continue in future.( Since Two years is not long enough for the author to predict the future. These two year's trends cannot decide the next year, let alone the year after. The development of the field of botany, the university's policy of research, the achievement of the department of life sciences, and even the economy of the society play important roles in how much research grants she can bring to the university. Besides, the author fails to refer to other professors, perhaps other professors have introduced more money than PT. Thus, the author cannot hasty conclude that PT has a high research abilities. Therefore, why ECU will offer her more salary is not well reasoned in this report, not to say a promotion to Department Chairperson.

Thirdly, presumed that she has been achieving greatly in her teaching and research work, it is also highly questioned that Thomas could be able to be qualified to the chairperson of the department. We all know that the work of administration and leadership are sharply different from that of teaching and research.For example, a chairperson needs many virtues such as self-determination, wide eye-sighted, sagacious brain and so on. Devoid of any introduction concerning such abilities of Thomas. We should not expect her to be the suitable person for this position.

Finally, even assuming that Professor Thomas is an excellent professor with an outstanding research capacity and is fit for the chairperson. no evidence proved in the argument implies that Professor Thomas is likely to leave Elm City University for another college.Even persumed that Thomas might leave for another university in future, it is not only the salary and the position but also many other factors--such as the research environment-- the university provides that attract her. For this reason,without making sure about what Thomas is really concerned about, the committee hastily conclude that Elm City University should give Thomas a $10.000 raise and a promotion.

In sum, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the committee must assure me that Professor Thomas's effectiveness as a teacher 【不知道这样表达有没有错误？】leads to the popularity of her classes and that Thomas will still receive more or as much research grants as that she has gained during the last two years in the foreseeable future.【这句话还是不会表达，原想表达的意思是：“Thomas 在可预见的将来任然能够拿到比过去两年更多或者至少一样的研究资助”，希望好心人帮一下忙】 The committee must also provider dear evidence for its fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University.

kejanUID: 2606891

3.5
看了“seven_teen掏pooh的百宝箱”的前9页
列A提纲5个
写一篇A全文

kejanUID: 2606891

Glancing through the essay entitled “Why Not More?,” Dr. Jefferson frowned thoughtfully.（这是Comorain的issue DIY四部曲中看到的，但有些不懂，不知道这个逗号应该放在引号外还是里边啊？）望斑竹帮忙！

kejanUID: 2606891

3.6
5篇A范文
看了Comorain 的“ISSUE DIY四部曲”

kejanUID: 2606891

刚又花了好几个小时，把“TIGERDAVID之GRE作文百科全书指南（最终版）”看了一遍
关于上面提到的一点：A部分的论点和论据不去攻击，只攻击论证部分，不是很认同，不知道大家怎么看的 啊？

kejanUID: 2606891

困了，去睡觉了，明天好好把自己以后几天的计划列一下
突然有种想背北美范文的冲动，貌似很多人说（其中不乏很厉害的前辈）是个有效的提升语言水平的方法，不知道大家的想法是怎样的？有么有哪位板油有经验啊？

kejanUID: 2606891

学习“wglxh的小连载合辑 The Element of Style初解读 从修改中见英文功力”
                                                                                        原版属于wglxh
主动语态更直接,简洁,有力,生动!
此外,即使用被动.也要时刻注意"有动词不用名词",看例子!

A survey of this region was made in 1900. This region was surveyed in 1900.
Mobilization of the army was rapidly carried out. The army was rapidly mobilized.
Confirmation of these reports cannot be obtained. These reports cannot be confirmed.

常见废话小全
废话类型一:傻傻的否定句!   not important trifling
废话类型二: 不必要的修饰 this is a subject which; this subject
废话类型三:最常见废词---- "the fact that"owing to the fact that since (because)
废话类型四-----累赘的插入结构 Trafalgar, which was Nelson's last battle Trafalgar, Nelson's last battle
废话类型五-----常见的废名词,出现只为凑字数 character: Acts of a hostile character Hostile acts

五口诀：
口诀一:修饰词紧跟被修饰词
口诀二:谓语要跟紧主语(鉴于大家主谓人人天天不一致,这条记牢了)
口诀三:代词紧跟被指代的词( 指代不清也是俺常犯的毛病)
口诀四:切勿偷工减料,不该省的词不要省
口诀五:把要强调的内容放在句子最后(或最开始)

常见词的误用
1.Claim.当动词时讲时它强调一个"申明某种权利"等.不要被所谓的范文误导.它不能替代maintain,declare,assert等词.

2.compare to &compare with:前者强调在"不同中比较相同,相似";后者强调在"相同或相似中比较不同",看例句
Thus life has been compared to a pilgrimage, to a drama, to a battle; Congress may be compared with the British Parliament.

3.due to:这个词后面一定跟的是一个具体的名词,或人.请看例子:
误用:He lost the first game, due to carelessness.(这个词不具体)
正确:This invention is due to Edison
         losses due to preventable fires

4.effect & affect:后着才可当作动词表示"影响",前者在这个意思上是名词.

5.fix:这个词在书面语中只表示"固定";表示"修理"是口语(不知道这么说是不是过时了,毕竟这是一百年前的书 ,呵呵)

6.people,persons,the public:强调重点不同,时常记得换着用.
……

kejanUID: 2606891

3.6
首先感谢小麦可的修瑞issue2008寒假班录音
今天又把它从头到尾听了一遍，感觉还是有收获的
到现在issue还没下笔，是因为心中的恐惧，但时间不允许了，明天就得主战issue 了