argument61 学校电脑拥有量 写了很多篇了，求拍！

starshaneUID: 2616355

TOPIC: ARGUMENT61 - The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.

"Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years."
WORDS: 386
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/30 0:06:28


总的来说，这个题目还真是欠抽……


The author of this report cited that the nation-wild average ratio of computers to students in K-12 schools is 1:5, which is regarded as a positive figure by educators, and in Eyleria's K-12 the ratio is 1:7. He then suggested that the ratio in Eyleria is good enough to ensure that all students be proficient in computer technology and no need to fund further computers or technology education in the next years. I found his deduction barely hold water because no solid evidence was given to prove that students can actually use those equipment and learn something.

数据问题
In the first place, the value of the national ratio is rather doubtful since it indicates merely the sum figures of computers in K-12. Firstly, national ratio has little relevance to regional reality. The disparity of numbers of computers between poor and rich districts can be very large. There's no guarantee that in poor districts the ratio is smaller than 1:5, maybe is 1:20, so that the educators' dissertion that "all" students have access to computers lost its credibility. Secondly, even in rich districts where the ratio is bigger than 1:5, say 1:3, students may not be able to use computers every day. Maybe computers are locked up in a special room and students have no free access to them, or students are subjects to a very limited time to use computers on a weekly basis. In any sense, the educators indication is far too absolute and should not be cited as a supporting idea in this report.

全国调查与地方实际的差异
As in Eyleria, where the ratio is even smaller than the national average, the situation is probably worse. Firstly, the figure may not be valid. Maybe the computers in Elyria are too old to be used, or half of them have already broke down, then the ratio is reduced to 1:10 or some and not every student can use computers. Even the 1:7 ratio is correct, and students can get access to computers, sheer figure does not guarantee proficiency. It is difficult for students to learn computer technology by themselves thus tutors in computer science is quite necessary, whereas the author provided no information about tutors. If there’s not enough tutors in the school, perhaps a few students may be “fully proficiency” of computers through self study, but I highly doubt that “all” students can reach that level. Besides, the possibility exist that not every student is willing to learn about computers, they may prefer reading or sports instead. If students are not interested, it is unlikely that they can learn computer technology well.

结论问题
Even if all the possibilities above can be eliminated, and all students in Eyleria are quite interested in learning computers under the guidance of tutors, it is still groundless to say that no budget should be spent on relevant teaching in the next few years. Common sense informs me that computers need regular maintenance or they break down easily, or maybe some latest technology stuff comes out and should be equipped in the classroom, say, a 3D projector which can create better learning experience. Anyway it is too assertive to wipe out all budgets on computers and technology in the next few years.


In conclusion, figures do not suggest that all students can have access to and fully learn computers. To make that affirmation, information concerning the condition of computers, the number of tutors and the interests of students are important. Moreover, budgets are also necessary for future maintenance and equipment.

虽然段落内部是有递进关系，整篇是按照题目叙述的顺序写的，好像大段落之间层层递进的感觉不强

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

TOPIC: ARGUMENT61 - The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.

"Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years."
WORDS: 386
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/30 0:06:28


总的来说，这个题目还真是欠抽……


The author of this report cited that the nation-wild average ratio of computers to students in K-12 schools is 1:5, which is regarded as a positive figure by educators, and in Eyleria's K-12 the ratio is 1:7. He then suggested that the ratio in Eyleria is good enough to ensure that all students be proficient in computer technology and no need to fund further computers or technology education in the next years. I found his deduction barely hold water because no solid evidence was given to prove that students can actually use those equipment and learn something. （开头有模板化太严重的嫌疑，另外有一个重要问题，本题的结论是“In next few years, any of the schools' budget on computers is not necessary" 但是，你没点出来。你只点出的它的一个推论。还有，最后一句，你试着指出原题的错误，但是你这句放在这里用处不大。反而有使结构混乱的效果，你没说它是主要问题，它和一面的一段联系也不大，更没起到提示全文的作用。）
看一下这两个贴子吧：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=920961&highlight=
                                   https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1073291&highlight=




数据问题
In the first place, the value of the national ratio is rather doubtful since it indicates merely the sum figures of computers in K-12. Firstly, national ratio has little relevance to regional reality. The disparity of numbers of computers between poor and rich districts can be very large. There's no guarantee that in poor districts the ratio is smaller than 1:5, maybe is 1:20, so that the educators' dissertion that "all" students have access to computers lost its credibility. Secondly, even in rich districts where the ratio is bigger than 1:5, say 1:3, students may not be able to use computers every day. Maybe computers are locked up in a special room and students have no free access to them, or students are subjects to a very limited time to use computers on a weekly basis. In any sense, the educators indication is far too absolute and should not be cited as a supporting idea in this report.（批它这个前全国调查数据的前提没多大意义，它只是本篇的前提，为了说明1比5是一个比较好的比例，为下面当地学校的设备比例提供一个标准。你说它这个数据有地区差异，也不能说明1比5不是一个好的比例嘛！对吧？）

全国调查与地方实际的差异
As in Eyleria, where the ratio is even smaller than the national average, the situation is probably worse. Firstly, the figure may not be valid. Maybe the computers in Elyria are too old to be used, or half of them have already broke down, then the ratio is reduced to 1:10 or some and not every student can use computers. Even the 1:7 ratio is correct, and students can get access to computers, sheer figure does not guarantee proficiency. It is difficult for students to learn computer technology by themselves thus tutors in computer science is quite necessary, whereas the author provided no information about tutors. If there’s not enough tutors in the school, perhaps a few students may be “fully proficiency” of computers through self study, but I highly doubt that “all” students can reach that level. Besides, the possibility exist that not every student is willing to learn about computers, they may prefer reading or sports instead. If students are not interested, it is unlikely that they can learn computer technology well. （这一段比较好，首先质疑数据，然后批判数据不等于proficiancy, 并且展开也比较充分）

结论问题
Even if all the possibilities above can be eliminated, and all students in Eyleria are quite interested in learning computers under the guidance of tutors（this sentence is not necessary, which is included in the possiblities), it is still groundless to say that no budget should be spent on relevant teaching in the next few years. Common sense informs me that computers need regular maintenance or they break down easily, or maybe some latest technology stuff comes out and should be equipped in the classroom, say, a 3D projector which can create better learning experience. Anyway it is too assertive to wipe out all budgets on computers and technology in the next few years.（well developed!）


In conclusion, figures do not suggest that all students can have access to and fully learn computers. To make that affirmation, information concerning the condition of computers, the number of tutors and the interests of students are important. Moreover, budgets are also necessary for future maintenance and equipment. （我不评结尾）

虽然段落内部是有递进关系，整篇是按照题目叙述的顺序写的，好像大段落之间层层递进的感觉不强（虽然不强，还是能够体现出来）





               整篇看下来，语言值得称道。
               多在结构和逻辑上下下功夫吧！！！

以上只是个人意见， 请斟酌采纳！！