Argument1(ETS范文中的那个topic1)

showkidUID: 2427308

PS:我目前正在找适合自己的行文方法，所以说就找了一篇官方范文的题目来写。在写之前没有参看范文，所希望的就是能够通过和官方范文相对比找出我的问题。另外，目前先着重看的是批驳错误的顺序和展开，所以还没有写开头结尾，见谅~

Argument Topic 1
The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. this strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.




First, the reason of why there is little evidence of environmental damage in Myria is not clear. The assumption that charging people more money is the best way to preserve public lands in Illium suggests that it is presumed that charging fees for the use of national park leads to the little environmental damage in Myria. This is certainly not the case, for the lack of evidence to support the assumption. The government in Myria might have already take a serious of measures to protect the environment of their country, for example there may be specific rules of laws have been set to protect the environment, or new technology might have been introduced to their country to deal with the pollution of the chemistry industry and other like industries. What’s more, there is little evidence of environmental damage does not mean that there is little (or even none) environmental damage. For example, the government might intent to mask their environmental problems by forbidding reporting relative news. Or even the civilians of Myria might do not take care of the reports of environmental damage. As a result there is no report about the environment.

Second, Even if we admit the speaker’s assumption that charging fees for the use of national park is the reason of why there is little environmental damage in Myria, this does not necessarily mean that Illium can protect their environment in the same way. The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account of the essential differences between Myria and Illium. For example, the civilians of Myria might have a more acute sense of protecting their environment by natural. Or the economy of Illius might be better, and their civilians might take no care of the money of charging. On the other hand, the climate or location of Myria might have advantages over Illius. Most part of Myria may be covered by ancient forest and river or lakes, and it has a kind climate for various kinds of animals to live. While Illius might be surrounded by desert and the climate there is extremely drought all the year round. What’s more, even if the suggestion can help Illius reduce their environmental damage, no evidence support that the public lands will be preserved as well. The suggestion only acts on person, while there is no evidence showed that the pollution of the public lands due to the people who using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. Given that the losing of their public lands results from the extremely climate in Illium, like floods or rainstorms, this suggestion will do not work at all on the problem of preserving the public lands.

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that the government of Illium will spend the money collected on protecting environment. For example, the government of Iliusm may use the money to build a new chemical plant to promote economic development of their country. And the result of the investment has no positive impact on preserving their lands; instead, it might cause more environmental pollution like the loss of land.

starshaneUID: 2616355

1# showkid

First, the reason of why there is little evidence of environmental damage in Myria is not clear. The assumption that charging people more money is the best way to preserve public lands in Illium suggests that it is presumed that charging fees for the use of national park leads to the little environmental damage in Myria. （前两句位置颠倒一下合并成一句可能更好。）This is certainly not the case, for the lack of evidence to support the assumption. The government in Myria might have already take a serious of measures to protect the environment of their country, for example there may be specific rules of laws have been set to protect the environment, or new technology might have been introduced to their country to deal with the pollution of the chemistry industry and other like industries. What’s more, there is little evidence of environmental damage does not mean that there is little (or even none) environmental damage. For example, the government might intent to mask their environmental problems by forbidding reporting relative news. Or even the civilians of Myria might do not take care of the reports of environmental damage. As a result there is no report about the environment. （这点驳得过头了，其实只说可能还有很多unreported damages就可以了。题目由没说no report about the environment）


第一段观点上没什么可挑剔的~

Second, Even if we admit the speaker’s assumption that charging fees for the use of national park is the reason of why there is little environmental damage in Myria, this does not necessarily mean that Illium can protect their environment in the same way. The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account of the essential differences between Myria and Illium. For example, the civilians of Myria might have a more acute sense of protecting their environment by natural. Or the economy of Illius might be better, and their civilians might take no care of the money of charging. （那反驳的可能说：“收费更高”即可）On the other hand, the climate or location of Myria might have advantages over Illius. Most part of Myria may be covered by ancient forest and river or lakes, and it has a kind climate for various kinds of animals to live. While Illius might be surrounded by desert and the climate there is extremely drought all the year round. （……这个假设太极端了，而且这个假设有什么意义呢？环境条件本来不好不是更应该保护么？）What’s more, even if the suggestion can help Illius reduce their environmental damage, no evidence support that the public lands will be preserved as well. The suggestion only acts on person, while there is no evidence showed that the pollution of the public lands due to the people who using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. Given that the losing of their public lands results from the extremely climate in Illium, like floods or rainstorms, this suggestion will do not work at all on the problem of preserving the public lands.



Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that the government of Illium will spend the money collected on protecting environment. （题目完全没说政府会利用钱来保护环境啊，只说“提高门票，可能人们破坏环境的行为就会减少”。换言之，你这段没有攻击目标） For example, the government of Iliusm may use the money to build a new chemical plant to promote economic development of their country. （……同样这个假设太极端了……）And the result of the investment has no positive impact on preserving their lands; instead, it might cause more environmental pollution like the loss of land.
整体觉得这段不是很站得住脚。
因为ETS的6分argument要求里第一条是
clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully。
感觉你最后一段就是自己在题目的基础上推的。

建议：1，认真找准题目中的事实，不要诬陷别人没说过的话。你这篇中有两次这种情况
            2，下次请附带中文提纲行么

我没找到官方范文啊，第一篇不是车辆限速么
附我的提纲：
一，Myria收费对保护环境没起作用——1，可能收的门票很低，没有警告作用  
                                                2，哪怕收门票高了，可能M人口少，本来公园利用率低，自然破坏低，
                                                3，哪怕破坏得多，大量unreported
                                                4，哪怕真的破坏少，可能是其他方法的作用——更多投入，科技
总之收费不一定对减少破坏起了作用

二，哪怕一不成立（收费对环保起作用），对本地也不适用——
                                             1，可能我们现在的damage主要原因不是人为的，也许是自然公园里动物造成的，这样收门票完全没意义
                                             2，哪怕是人为的，可能利用公有地烧烤什么的有钱人愿意多出那点门票钱，并认为只要有钱就能破坏，反而更糟
三，哪怕二成立(收费减少了本地环境破坏），也不是best way——
                                              1，加强规劝，人民的环保意识啊
                                             2，加大环保投入，治理啊


感觉argument就是两个字，assumption和even if，才好满足ETS逻辑关系层层递进的要求

showkidUID: 2427308

首先，我不写提纲出来，是这样考虑的，也许有些自私，见谅。我希望让读者自己读，看看整篇文章的行文是否混乱。如果读者一看，逻辑、TS和展开都很清晰，自然提纲不列也罢。如果读者读着很吃力，费了半天的力气还没弄明白，必须借助中文提纲才能看清楚英文的行文的话，我觉得是没有意义的。因为交给ETS的文章，只有这篇文章本身，没有其他的可以帮助他理解你文章的辅助东西，也没有这样的机会。所以，我觉得，不列提纲出来，反而更容易发现问题。

提纲：
1.M市的无环境破坏方面的报道不一定是因为收费的作用。
2.即使承认，M市收费政策可以使其起到保护环境的作用，也没有足够的证据表明同样的办法可以在I市实行和成功。
   （段内进一步，即使收费政策可以保护环境，也不一定可以保护其土地。）
3.没有证据表明，政府会把手来的钱用在保护土地或者其他保护环境的行为上。
   (PS:

=================================================================

On the other hand, the climate or location of Myria might have advantages over Illius. Most part of Myria may be covered by ancient forest and river or lakes, and it has a kind climate for various kinds of animals to live. While Illius might be surrounded by desert and the climate there is extremely drought all the year round. （……这个假设太极端了，而且这个假设有什么意义呢？环境条件本来不好不是更应该保护么？）

第二段，是批驳成功不能复制。因为作者忽略了两个城市可能存在的先决条件上的差别。然后这个例子就是举出，可能两边地理位置、气候差距很大。同样的措施在A成功，B就不能成功。并不是想说，B环境更差就不要保护环境了~

===================================================================
关于第三个批驳点：

最后一句：

   By collecting fees from those people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.”

     我认为这句话是在表达政府可以利用收来的钱来保护土地。如果理解为收费可以保护土地的话，就意思完全跟上句话重复了，就没还有任何意义了。而且同时看两个重点单词：collecing和help preserve；和上句话中的 way 和 单独的 perserve 的区别。
===================================================================
最后非常感谢SS同学的认真和诚恳！很感动！辛苦了~

海王泪UID: 2673613

你是之前那个写过某逻辑链文并且我还和你讨论过的那位童鞋吗？
这篇看上去表述方面更Familiar了，但是，坦白说，你文章逻辑链出了严重的问题。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. M地区的逻辑链似乎没写出来。。
我没细看，貌似原材料逻辑链是这个？
M地区Report little evidence of ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE-->(Implicit Step: M地区little ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE)-->是因为对使用NP的人收费

有鉴于此，你B1中里实际包括的两个内容可以按这个顺序写出来，或者干脆分出两段。

先谈这个内容（按逻辑链，开头当然就不应用what's more这种并列词），讲LITTLE EVIDENCE不等于LITTLE DAMAGE
What’s more, there is little evidence of environmental damage does not mean that there is little (or even none) environmental damage. For example, the government might intent to mask their environmental problems by forbidding reporting relative news. Or even the civilians of Myria might do not take care of the reports of environmental damage. As a result there is no report about the environment.

然后假设M地区破坏真得较少，再谈是否真是收费措施的功劳。
同时将“why there is little evidence of environmental damage”改成"why there is little environmental damage"，这样更符合逻辑链,否则自己也跟着作者跳了一个implicit step。

2.后文
呃，我下面两段大概看了一下，不说了。一样的问题。

3.Alternative Explanation

文中的一些Alternative Explanation 有些太不符合Common Sense了，在此就不一一指出

4.最后一段不要无理取闹
原材料有头到尾都没有提到这些Fee用来干什么，所以讨论FEE的目的是有意义的。
但是，说“no evidence provided that the government of Illium will spend the money collected on protecting environment”，明显就是给原材料乱扣帽子。原材料根本没提及FEE收了后用来保护环境，我看原本的意思是想暗示说收费的话NP需求会减少吧。。。那就往这边谈，而不要乱扣帽子。最多只是附带提及一下问下作者说到的FEE后续用来干嘛就算了。


P.S. 你是在做实验吧。。。这次的句式、内容及形式模仿着ETS范文，结果把完整的逻辑链给抛掉了。。拿我做实验没有用D，我不是考官，实验结果没有参考价值。。。全都是参考意见而已。。



私人不负责任的建议：
如果你要达到“在写之前没有参看范文，所希望的就是能够通过和官方范文相对比找出我的问题”这个目的，我建议你找一篇新点的范文TOPIC写写并做比较。
这TOPIC是不是太旧了？我没什么印象，又好像的确有这么一篇。
毕竟ETS的评分标准、口味什么的也会在提高或变化，过旧的范文不管是否有太大的研究意义，在评分上的判断可能就与现在存在偏差。
较新的ARGU文章你都研究透了吗？有余力的话倒也可以回顾一下较旧的范文。

另外友情提醒一句，不要抄范文。。在ETS太岁头上动土明显不智，有个雷同监测系统，详细情况参见AW INTRO
“The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account of the essential differences between ”

showkidUID: 2427308

4# 海王泪

首先非常感谢，备考的非常时期还能抽出宝贵的时间来解答我的问题，给予建议~

======================================================
1.不是试验品，不是在模仿。我是认真研究了GEER那篇范文和评论之后，根据自己所体会到的A的侧重和重点之后，写出的这篇文章。
    a.当然，GEER和这一篇的区别还是比较大的。GEER是一个由事实到结论的直接推断（虽然包含了一个隐含推论），所以这篇A的重点在于批判“论据”支撑结论的过程；
      而这篇文章明显包含了由前提-中间推论-最后结论的过程，因而可以用让步方式展开。
    b. 我所认为的A的重中之重，就是你要把你找出的逻辑错误充分展开，原因在于对于主要的错误还是很明显的，只要你真的去分析了，而后展开则拉开了差距。引用评论原话：“the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail”。


2.我的逻辑链本身没有问题，这篇文章的逻辑链很简单。可能是在写的过程中会让读者confused吧，这也是我之前所说过的一个很重要的问题：我之所以要去完完整整的叙述我的逻辑。而后开始批判，就是为了防止，我的逻辑和读者的逻辑有些许的出入或者逻辑突出点有出入的情况发生。如果发生，即使是极其微小的逻辑侧重和议论顺序不同，都会让读者感到这人逻辑混乱！也许，我来给你讲讲我的逻辑链，你会发现，跟你的并无出入！

第一段：批判原文第一句.当然，这个过程包括了两个逻辑错误。其中一个逻辑错误时隐含假设的错误，没有明显提出。所以我就把他们放到一段了。
           逻辑链：little report --(no damage)-- charge fee的方案可以保护环境  
而后，我承认在这个过程中我犯了一个错误。我确实应该先批隐含假设；而后才是后者的。此外，确实对于隐含假设批判过程中的example 不够 common sense。谢谢指正！

第二段：在承认1成功的基础上，批判成功不能复制。而后，包括一个小让步，也是文章中的一个隐含假设，不过这个过程的隐含假设和最终结论可以看成一体的，是一个整体与局部的关系。
           逻辑链：M成功保护环境--I也能用同样的方案保护（环境）--I的土地得到保护。
           此段，我先用 经济情况不同（从主观方面的不同）和气候与环境（客观方面的不同）两个方面 来举出可能导致 方案失败的情况。而后让步，即使可以使得环境得到保护，并不能得出，一定可以保护土地。又用，造成当地土地问题的并非人为因素而是自然因素，来作为实际的例子。

第三段：上述材料最后，暗示收来的fee也可以帮助保护土地。本身这个就是一个逻辑链，单独存在的,算是一个补充，强调收费还有背的好处。因而，我也是提一提，放在最后批判。

请看，我的逻辑链真的很混乱？真的和你的相当迥异？是不是仅仅是因为我的表达和结构的混乱导致了我没有表达出我的逻辑链？
又不得不再提，上次讨论中的一个重点问题：在批判之前，是否要梳理自己理解的逻辑链，给自己放个垫脚石，而后再开始批判。
BTW，这个问题是否可以放在开头和结尾来弥补？
Still confusing。。。。
======================================================
3.对于最后一段说我无中生有。。。请参看范文B2。。。我之前并没有看过范文~ 见楼下。
======================================================
最后，在说声谢谢！谢谢耐心和热心。
其实在我来看这个讨论是有必要的，我想这样的过程，也会提醒版主一些自己曾经稍稍忽略的一些问题，进而也许会有新的发现甚至突破~
bless！

showkidUID: 2427308

Essay Response—Score 6
This argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which is not necessarily the case. The argument asserts that because the country of Myria charges fees for the use of its national parks, there is little evidence of environmental damage. But there are several reasons why one cannot assume that the lack of evidence of environmental damage is a result of the fact that individuals are charged to use these parks.

First, just because there is a lack of evidence does not preclude the fact that environmental damage may in fact be occurring. The individuals who are testing the area for evidence of damages may not have the proper scientific instruments or educational training necessary to detect damage that may be present. In fact, certain kinds of environmental damage may not be detectable in the short term even using the most sophisticated scientific methods. Imbalance in ecosystems, for example, may only become apparent over a long period of time.

Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage, this does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations. An alternative explanation may be that because the country charges a fee to use the national parks, people are less inclined to use the parks. It then stands to reason that with fewer people in the parks, there will be less of a detrimental impact on the environment. In addition, even if people are willing to pay the fee, the funds collected may be insufficient to cover the costs of maintaining and preserving the parkland.

Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot assume that this same scenario will work in Illium. There are a myriad of variables that can contribute to the success of this type of environmental maintenance and restoration program. Pre-existing and uncontrollable environmental conditions such as the rate of erosion and the overall climate may cause damage that cannot be rectified by monetary solutions. In addition,
cultural norms regarding how one views his or her responsibility and role in terms of preserving the environment may influence the intensity of environmental damage that may be sustained.

Thus, although the strategy of charging citizens of Myria for the use of its parks in order to collect funds for any restoration that may be required may be successful in Myria, this reality alone does not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would be effective in Illium or any other country.