[经验思考] 从AWIntro看Argument的写法 [复制链接]

AdelineShen
UID：2630498

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 1555
寄托币: 14569
注册时间: 2009-4-17
精华: 18
帖子: 345

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-3-15 20:27:45 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 AdelineShen 于 2010-3-15 20:30 编辑

就像准备T要先看OG，准备AW一定要先多看几遍AWIntro，好好把握ETS想让我们写什么样的文章，弄清楚ETS认为什么样的文章才是好文章。以前草草让我们翻译过AWIntro，我建议各位如果还有时间的，没做过翻译的，也去翻译一下，至少要自己好好去研究一下。今天重新整理并精分析了一下AWIntro的Argument部分，希望对各位版友有所帮助，同时也希望大家多多对ETS的官方范文给出自己的ideas，有时间的同学可以自己回帖附上自己的精分析~

在写Argument之前你要做的事情：
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
think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can
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

对以上问题进行思考后，仔细理清文章的逻辑关系，开始的时候可以对每道题目进行分析，把自己的逻辑思路写在旁边，这个时候最重要的是要理清论证顺序和找到尽可能多的alternative explanations and counterexamples. 进行了一段时间的训练后，你分析问题的速度会越来越快，也会对自己的思路越来越有自信，这时你就可以尝试在30min内限时写作了。通过限时写作，你可以调整自己在考试时的pace，学会取舍和控制时间。比如花1-2min迅速看题并找准思路，25min写文章，再花2-3min检查全文。因为Argument写作时间相对紧张，限时能让你找到那种写作的pace，让你知道一段文章写多少差不多了，不至于把某一段展开的太饱满一大堆废话导致后面的观点来不及展开，这都是在限时训练中要培养的感觉。

How to Interpret Numbers, Percentages, and Statistics in Argument Topics

Remember that any numbers, percentages, or statistics in Argument topics are used only as evidence in support of a conclusion, and you should always consider whether they actually support the conclusion.

The Form of Your Response

考官不在乎你的Argument写成什么形式，而只在乎你如何很好地用你的critical thinking & analytical writing来analyze the argument. Developing一个topic的过程，不是看你能想出多少反例，而是看你怎么用这些反例去反驳题目中的观点。

Sample：
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating 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, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

题目中用数据证明了一个观点，我们看看在出现数据证明题的时候可以从哪些方面反驳。
What percentage of all roller skaters goes to the emergency room after roller skating accidents? （数据样本的大小）
•
Are the people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents representative of roller skaters in general? （数据样本的可靠性）
•
Are there people who are injured in roller skating accidents who do not go to the emergency room? （数据样本大小）
•
Were the roller skaters who went to the emergency room severely injured?
•
Were the 25 percent of roller skaters who were wearing protective gear injured just as severely as the 75 percent who were not wearing the gear? （数据的可比性）
•
Are streets and parking lots inherently more dangerous for roller skating than other places? （片面性）
•
Would mid-quality gear and equipment be just as effective as high-quality gear and equipment in reducing the risk of severe injury while roller skating? （质疑特定词语high-quality）
•
Are there factors other than gear and equipment—e.g., weather conditions, visibility, skill of the skaters—that might be more closely correlated with the risk of roller skating injuries?（片面性）

我们可以看到，在反驳样本数据的时候，我们可以从数据的大小、可靠性、代表性、片面性、可比性以及质疑特定词组等方面对数据能否证明conclusion进行分析。

Essay Response * – Score 6

The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion.（简要概括文章结论）After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur.
However(转折), 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. （高度概括文章逻辑漏洞，提示下文）

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.（分别定义两种gear）
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.（提出自己对statistics可信度的观点，通过指出一种更好的实验方法来反驳题目中的数据）

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.（开门见山提出TS）
If（从数据来源之一——人的角度提出一种他因） 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 repsonsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also（从数据来源之二——地点的角度提出另一种他因）, 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.

The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries.（直截了当提出TS）
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.

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.

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.

题目的逻辑思路：
在医院的emergency room的数据表明75%的在streets和parking lots受伤的人没有带gears→穿高质量的gear可以降低严重伤害事故的发生率

文章的论证顺序：
1. 数据不能证明结论，从数据参与的人和数据调查的场所进行分析
2. 没有说severe的证据
3. 没有对高质量和一般质量进行比较

我们可以看到这篇范文里，TS句都没有出现让步短语，而是直截了当指出文章逻辑错误，并流畅地develop the idea。所以不要总是以为一定要让步才能体现逻辑的流畅，该让步的时候是要让步，但我认为逻辑的流畅性更多是体现在如何用critical thinking和analytical writing很好地develop每一段的TS。

Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6

This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic'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（首段的写法可以从这里看出来）.
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 issuccinct, economical, （简洁）and generally error-free. Sentences are varied and complex（句型要有变化，可以多用复杂句）, and diction is expressive and precise.

In sum, this response 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 paper could still have received a 6.

Essay Response – Score 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 Commentary for Essay Response – Score 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 required for a 6 paper, but the clear organization, strong control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more than a score of 4.

Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 4

This adequate response targets the argument's vague and inconclusive "statistics."
The essay identifies and critiques the illogical reasoning that results from the misguided use of the argument's statistics:

•
that non-use of equipment may be "automatically" assumed to be the cause of injury
•
that "accidents" may refer to minor injuries
•
that injuries may result from other causes — skating in the dark, failure to train or warm-up properly, failure to recognize one's physical limitations

The writer competently grasps the weaknesses of the argument.
The ideas are clear and connected,but the response lacks transitional phrases.（连接语体现文章的连贯性，非常重要！）
Development, too, is only adequate.

Control of language is better than adequate.
The writer achieves both control and clarity and ably conforms to the conventions of written English.
Overall, though, this 4 response lacks the more thorough development that would warrant a score of 5.

欢迎大家补充自己的观点~