Argument139,马上考试，自己修改过，球拍

2510wangqiUID: 2664282

According to a study carried out at Lee University, the arguer holds the opinion that home schooling is the best way to educate teenage children. In order to give students a good education, the arguer suggest that the government should provide financial incentives so that home schooling is an option for more parents, rather than spending money on public education. In fact, the study demonstrated in this argument and the reasoning of the arguer are both unconvicing because of at least three crucial flaws.

First and foremost, the result of the study at Lee University cited by the author is unpersuasive. As we all know, students who spend more time on study usually achieve higher grades, but this case can not only attribute to the instruction of parents. In addition, the author does not provide any information about the children's family backgrounds who is surveyed in the study. It is obvious that parents, with high educational levels usually tend to provide more instruction and assist their children's learning. What's more, during the spare time, whether pupils take additional classes after school can not get from the study. Therefore, the result of the survey can not conclude that children with home schooling instruction perform better than those attended public, tax-supported schools.

In addition, even if the study reflects the specific reality, which means that students with parents instruction surely grades more than those attended public schools, it is not reasonable for the arguer to conclude that home schooling is the best way to educate teenage childeren. Because high scores can only manifest that children perform good in an examination, they can not reflect the ability of comprehension or innovation, which has the most significance in the children's future development. If the government pays too many attention to the scores of a student, it may turn out to be a terrible failure for a nation's education.

Admittedly, comparing with the general education provided for pupils, parents' instruction have some positive effect, such as designing specifically to meet the child's particular needs and intetests. However, public, tax-supported schools are the most effective education for the whole students, and the government should not reduce the money spent on public education, but increase the investment on education in order to improve the quality of the educational system. As is widely known, not all the parents are free enough or fully educated to give effective instrument to their children. Public schools are the most significant places for children receiving knowledge for their future study. The government should afford more support to improve the general education's quality.

To conclude, this argument, while it seems well-presented, contains several fallacies as discussed above. Thus, the government should not reduce the money spent on public education. Furthermore, in order for a thoroughly well-reasoned argument, the author should provide elaborate and persuasive evidences that could support his conclusion.

2510wangqiUID: 2664282

不好意思，题目忘记了：
TOPIC: ARGUMENT139 - The following appeared in the editorial section of an educational publication.

"One study at Lee University found that first-semester grades of teenage students who had always attended public, tax-supported schools were slightly lower than the grades of students who had received some home schooling instruction by parents at home, although the grade differences disappeared in the second semester. These results suggest that home schooling is the best way to educate teenage children. Therefore, instead of spending more money on public education, the government should provide financial incentives so that home schooling is an option for more parents. After all, children schooled at home receive more attention, since they are taught by the best possible teacher: a parent who has a high stake in educating them well."

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

According to a study carried out at Lee University, the arguer holds the opinion that home schooling is the best way to educate teenage children. In order to give students a good education, the arguer suggest(suggests) that the government should provide financial incentives so that home schooling is an option for more parents, rather than spending money on public education. In fact, the study demonstrated in this argument and the reasoning of the arguer are both unconvicing because of at least three crucial flaws.
First and foremost, the result of the study at Lee University cited by the author is unpersuasive. As we all know, students who spend more time on study usually achieve higher grades, but this case can not only attribute to the instruction of parents. In addition, the author does not provide any information about the children's family backgrounds who is(are) surveyed in the study. It is obvious that parents, with high educational levels usually tend to provide more instruction and assist their children's learning. What's more, during the spare time, whether pupils take additional classes after school can not get from the study. Therefore, the result of the survey can not conclude that children with home schooling instruction perform better than those attended public, tax-supported schools.(这一段主要说明了一个问题，就是在家接受教育的孩子分数高不能表明home schooling is better，但就整体论述来看，你的思考广度和深度是值得肯定的，但所叙述的三点之间逻辑联系不太明确。是不是可以这样说，学生分数高不能表明他们成绩好的来源就一定是接受了父母的教育，也可能是因为自己的努力，也有可能是在课外参加了补习。你所说的第二点，即学生的家庭背景并没有进行详细分析，就显得不那么明确你的意图，是不是可以这样理解，即使是学生成绩的提高确实受家庭教育的影响，也不是说所有家庭教育都一定起作用，那些给学生提供家庭教育的家长可能是受过高等教育的，或者本身是老师的，但也有家长没有受过什么教育，这个研究没有提供家庭背景就说明研究也许并没有代表性。是不是可以试着这样分析呢？)


In addition, even if the study reflects the specific reality, which means that students with parents instruction surely grades more than those attended public schools, it is not reasonable for the arguer to conclude that home schooling is the best way to educate teenage childeren. Because high scores can only manifest that children perform good in an examination, they can not reflect the ability of comprehension or innovation,（具体） which has the most significance in the children's future development. If the government pays too many（much） attention to the scores of a student, it may turn out to be a terrible failure for a nation's education.
Admittedly, comparing with the general education provided for pupils, parents' instruction have some positive effect, such as designing specifically to meet the child's particular needs and intetests. However, public, tax-supported schools are the most effective education for the whole students,（why?证据是什么？） and the government should not reduce the money spent on public education, but increase the investment on education in order to improve the quality of the educational system. As is widely known, not all the parents are free enough or fully educated to give effective instrument to their children. Public schools are the most significant places for children receiving knowledge for their future study. The government should afford more support to improve the general education's quality.（这一段的立意不错，就是比较家庭教育和学校教育指出家庭教育的优缺点，同时指出学校教育的优缺点说明家庭教育不比学校教育好。你对家庭教育的优缺点分析不错，但是对学校教育却只很含混地说它好，并没有说为什么，比如学校的师资力量更强，给学生创造交流合作的学习环境，提供更多的课程等等可以具体来说）
To conclude, this argument, while it seems well-presented, contains several fallacies as discussed above. Thus, the government should not reduce the money spent on public education. Furthermore, in order for a thoroughly well-reasoned argument, the author should provide elaborate and persuasive evidences that could support his conclusion.

整体的思路和逻辑是清楚的，思考也比较全面。问题就是说理有余例证不足，可以看出你思考的深度，但是要试着更具体地说明自己的观点。我看到有篇关于A写作的文章中写，要有白居易的精神，不要幻想rater会自己去分析和理解你的观点，而要尝试让自己的每个观点都有有效的支撑，谁都能一眼看懂并接受，就像做数学题，你要把分析步骤和答案都写清楚，而不能只写答案或者跳步。如果能分析更具体透彻，就会成为很好的文章了，加油。

2510wangqiUID: 2664282

十分地感谢小九详细地修改，今天下午就要考了还是收获不少的！