[1010G精英组] ISSUE&ARGU 习作 by Group Energy

深川翼UID: 2678109

===========
     论点提纲
===========

1、开头结尾强调两方面因素缺一不可
2、论述个人对历史所做的重要贡献
3、论述普通人民群众对历史所做的重要贡献

===========
     习作正文
===========


Through all the history records, we can easily find society elites like kings, bishops, generals, magnates or even mercenarys. The histrionics place so much emphasis on these individuals that they almost forget the real composition of the society, the fundamental citizens. Recently, a heated discussion was held up by two groups of people. Some scholars indicate that the most significant events and trends in history were made by famous few, while many individuals hold the opposite view.



These scholars hold this view for the following reasons. Firstly, the social elites are the most impressive ones in the society. Their opinions or even theis bad temper can affect the society greatly. If they want to make some changes, perhaps it will succeed sooner or later. But if some farmers or workers who live at the bottom of the society want to make significant events, the possibility of success will be reletively low. Secondly, the social elites have much wilder relationships than the ordinary people. The can effectively use their social resource to help them fulfill their dreams. Thus it is highly possible that they may achieve their goals at last and make some siginificant events. While the common ones have less friends or we may say less "useful friends" and it is hard for them to win finally. Human resource is as important in history as it is in today's world. Thirdly, the ability each social elite owns is of course stronger than the common ones, which might be the reason for which they get out from hundreds of millions of people and become a elite. The ability each one owns have much to do with the possibility that one will succeed, and almost no people will believe in a person whose ability is reletively low. This common one may not get support and fundings from other ones. From the three reasons above, the scholars believe that the most significant events and trends are offen made by the famous few.



On the contrary, many individuals hold the different view. They assert that the meanful events are made possible by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten. They provide the following reasons. First of all, maybe the social elites make some decisions and they are supported by the famous ones around them, but can they succeed at last only by this small group of people? When in Qin dynasty, the famous politician Shangyang came up with many changes in law to promote the economics and politics, and these suggestions are both supported by the king and the fellowships. But without the support of the citizens, could he succeed and make the Qin a strong country? Or if these changes are harmful to the ordinary people, will it last long? Maybe the Qin dynasty will soon die, let alone to say that it will last long or even become a strong country. What's more, if a big change is taking place, it is highly possible that it has been wildly acknowledged by the common citizens. The change has fully emerge in people's hearts and almost all the people hold the opinion that it will benefit each individuals and the whole country. If no one make the change, the change will happen sooner or later for everyone has realized the advantage of the change. If this were true, can we merely say that it is some famous few that solely make the most siginificant change without people's help?


In the end, I must point out that both the famous few and the ordinary group of people is indispensable to the social change. If no one support the change, the social elites themselves cannot make it. While if no one act as a bellweather in the progress, the change may delay at last, the significant events may become vacuum at last. So I srtongly indicate that both these two factors are indispensible.

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

Revised By

=======================   

hebillUID: 2532108

占座。。。。

小肯0113UID: 2590901

占~

zmssghhUID: 2779772

ZHAN

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓

                                                             【1010G精英组】E小组第9次作业

〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓

Argument161

In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most

respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study

conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each

of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the

respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

                                 写作样式模板

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

===========
  Logical Chain
===========

===========
     论点提纲
===========

===========
     习作正文
===========

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

Revised By

=======================   

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

拍文顺序

1-->7

3-->10

4-->3

7-->4

10-->11

11-->1

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

===========
  Logical Chain
===========

1 most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material
2 the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel
1 2 --> the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits

===========
     论点提纲
===========

1、样本的数量是否能代表居民地区的阅读习惯
2、图书馆借阅的图书不能代表阅读习惯
3、两个调查可能间隔的时间较长从而导致阅读习惯的改变

===========
     习作正文
===========

In this argument, the author cites to two studies of reading habits of Leeville citizens, which are conducted by the University of Leeville. Based on the information in the two studies, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study did not provide true information about their reading habits. This argument suffers some critical flaws that after close scrutiny of evidence that seriously undermine the conclusion and accordingly is not thoroughly well-reasoned. The main flaws of the argument will be discussed respectively.

To begin with, the reliability of results from the first study is open to doubt. The author false to consider that the quantities of respondents can represent the reading habits of Leeville citizens. Without the information about the size of sample, we cannot justify the results are worthy to be trusted. Even if the number of respondents is large enough for the study, the author still cannot hastily  assume that the results are reliable. The interviewers must consist of people with different ages of citizens, for example, children, adults and the old, as well as different jobs for example, teachers, students, doctors and lawyers. It is highly possible that the respondents are all from the same narrow area, such as universities, which obviously cannot represent the reading habits of local citizens.

Another problem that seriously weakens for the logic of this argument is that the arguer cannot point out that the local citizens have changed their reading habits as they borrow more mystery novels from the public libraries in Leeville. Common sense tells us that mystery novels people pay much attention to may be because that novel book is published recently, and publisher may exaggerate the quality of the book in order to attract people with the aim at good selling on their books. It is also possible that the most checked out mystery novels are the ones which the professors in universities advise their students read as references. Students borrow the mystery novels having a purpose to better understanding the courses and to get high scores. Therefore, the most checked out  books do not mean the reading habits of local citizens.

The last but not the least, even if the responds respondents are sufficient enough and representative of the whole local citizens, and even if the most borrowed mystery novels does indeed indicate that the changing reading habits of local citizens, the conclusion remains doubtful since the arguer fails to take the factor—time interval between the two studies—into consideration. Everything will be changed because of the fast development of modern society. The first study conducted maybe twenty years ago in which time people might prefer reading material of literary classics as there were so little books. But now, uncountable books with different types are available to meet the need of local citizens. They may just find that the mystery novels make them exciting for the boring and busy life. Of course, the reading habits will change with the passing of time. Therefore, the author is unfair to conclude that the results are unreliable the first study.

To sum up, this argument, while seems well-supported at first, has several flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and not persuasive as it stands. Yet, it could be substantiated by provide more detailed information about the two studies, such as the size of survey, and the constituent of respondents. In addition, to further bolster the conclusion, the arguer should furnish a demonstration that local citizens have changed their reading habits form the follow-up study. Accordingly, only with more logical reasoning could this argument turn out to be more than emotional appeal.

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

Revised By 小肯0113
=======================   


In this argument, the author cites to two studies of reading habits(habit泛指) of Leeville citizens, which (both)are conducted by the University of Leeville. Based on the information in the two studies, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study did not provide true information about their reading habits. However, this argument suffers some critical flaws that after close scrutiny of evidence that seriously undermine the conclusion and accordingly is not thoroughly well-reasoned(?这句不太对). The main flaws of the argument will be discussed respectively.

To begin with, the reliability of (the) results from the first study is open to doubt. The author false(d) to consider that the quantities（if the quantity） of respondents can represent the reading habits of(去掉reading habits变成can represent all the Leeville citizen ) Leeville citizens. Without the information about the size of sample, we cannot justify the results are worthy to be trusted. Even if the number of respondents is large enough for the study, the author still cannot hastily assume that the results are reliable(?是not reliable 吧). The interviewers must consist of people with different ages of citizens, for example, children, adults and the old, as well as different jobs, for example, teachers, students, doctors and lawyers. It is highly possible that the respondents are all from the same narrow area, such as universities, which obviously cannot represent the reading habits of local citizens.(我个人觉得做推断不是非常合适，可以不要highly)

Another problem that seriously weakens for（weaken用做动词不要for） the logic of this argument is that the arguer cannot point out that the local citizens have changed their reading habits as they borrow more mystery novels from the public libraries in Leeville(?没明白这句话的逻辑意思及它与下文的关系). Common sense tells us that mystery novels people pay much attention to（people pay more attention to mystery novels） may be because that novel book is published recently, and publisher may exaggerate the quality of the book in order to attract people with the aim at good selling on their books. It is also possible that the most checked out mystery novels are the ones which the professors in universities advise their students read as references(这个点很好). Students borrow the mystery novels having a purpose to better understanding the courses and to get high scores. Therefore, the most （frequently）checked out books do not mean（equal比mean更恰当） the reading habits of local citizens.

The last but not the least, even if the responds(不要它，因为有了respondents） respondents are sufficient enough and（can， 少动词，and前后要对称） representative of the whole local citizens, and even if the most borrowed mystery novels does indeed indicate that the changing reading habits of local citizens, the conclusion remains doubtful since the arguer fails to take the factor—time interval between the two studies—into consideration. Everything will（would） be changed because of the fast development of modern society. The first study conducted maybe twenty years ago in which time people might prefer reading material of literary classics as there were so little books. But now, uncountable books with different types are available to meet the need of local citizens. They may just find that the mystery novels make them exciting for the(and escape from the, for 在这里不恰当，exciting for sth.—对什么感到兴奋) boring and busy life. Of course, the reading habits will change with（during） the passing of time. Therefore, the author（It 不要the author） is unfair to conclude that the results are unreliable the first study.

To sum up, this argument, while（不要） seems well-supported at first(though), has several flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and not persuasive as it stands. Yet, it could be substantiated by provide more detailed information about the two studies, such as the size of survey, and the constituent of respondents. In addition, to further bolster the conclusion, the arguer should furnish a demonstration that local citizens have changed their reading habits form the follow-up study. Accordingly, only with more logical reasoning could this argument turn out to be more than emotional appeal. （总结得很好~~）

文章写得很扎实，每一段的阐述也很不错
同时有一些很经典的“错误”， 比如结构对称的问题，
和几个介词的搭配，我发现for用得很多，但是可能要加深对for这个介词的理解，特别是用做连词接原因的时候
另外可以多用几个句型， it is……等等之类的可以多写写，练练

shevavaUID: 2574709

===========

Logical Chain

===========

Arguments:

In a study of reading habits, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material;

However,

Another research found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel.

The respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

===========

     论点提纲

===========

1\调查本身可能存在的局限性：样本太少；所取人群可能不经常去图书馆；

2\即使调查本身正确性毋庸置疑，但是也可能有其他原因造成这种结果。比如说图书馆文学方面的书较少；大家可能都去买文学方面的书，而不是去图书馆借；

3\即使上面的都对，也可能是有阅读习惯的改变导致这种调查结果的变化：比如说在第一个实验中，可能当时文学盛行；而在第二个实验时，出现了像哈利波特等这种畅销书，带动了人们对科幻小说兴趣；就像现在3D电影的盛行必然会使更多的人们关注这项题材。

===========

习作正文

===========

In the argument, the writer simply listed the different conclusions of two studies conducted by the same group of researchers, and without any comparison between the two researches, a conclusion that the respondents of the first study misrepresented their reading habits. Clearly, there are many other factors can result in the differences of the conclusions.

Firstly, without any explicit information about the researches, the two themselves may have limitations to the accuracy of their outcomings. As we all know, in order to elaborate the conclusions drawn from the comparison between two groups, many factors, such as the size of the group, the constitution of the group people, affect the final results. In the argument, the two researches are possible to have a small number of Leeville citizens, so that without enough people included in the researches, the random may turn out. On the other hand, whether the two groups of the people concluded people from all professions, from different ranges of ages, also determines the accuracy of conclusions, because while some writers are interested in the literary classics, the children prefer to read cartoon books.

Secondly, even if the accuracy of the studies is believable, the reasons why they have different results vary. For example, it is possible that with greater interest in the literary classics, the citizens would like to buy books from stores or online, instead of borrowing them from libraries, so that they can keep the books. Moreover, maybe the lack of literary classics in the libraries makes it inconvenient for the citizens to borrow.

Last but not least, even if all of the reasons listed above are false, the change of the reading habits of the citizens is really probable to happen, without knowing how long it is between the two researches, just as a saying, ”impossible is nothing”, especially in such a long time and changing world. The social environment affects the trends of fad. For example, companioned by the fad of 3D movies, such as Avatar, Alice, the focuses on the techniques, the subjects of 3D movies, will certainly increase. Therefore, maybe the first study was taken at a time when the literary classics were popular, while the followed-up study was taken when the mystery novel such as Harry Potter series, was in fashion. It is unavoidable that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel.

All in all, the argument needs to provide more information about the two researches and the backgrounds when the researches were taken. If in that case, the argument will be more believable.

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

Revised By

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

nanfeng25899UID: 2629871

===========
  Logical Chain
===========
1 前提一：由L大学的调查得出多数被访者倾向于古典文学
2 前提二：在由相同的调查人员做出的另一份报告中发现L公共图书馆经常被借阅的书是神秘小说
3 结论：第一次的被访者错误的表达了他们的阅读习惯

===========
     论点提纲
===========
1没有直接的证据说明第一个实验中回答问题的人就是那些去图书馆的人,公共图书馆并不是能阅读到古典小说的唯一途径，读者也可以去买书或者私人图书馆。
2 对于古典小说和神秘小说的定义很模糊，神话小说可能也是文学作品。
3没有提供两次调查的具体时间，调查的结果可能与不同时间的流行趋势有关。


===========
     习作正文
===========

The reasoning behind this argument seems to be logical and tenable, however, the conclusion that the respondents fail to represent their opinion on the reading habits bases on a few assumptions which are not substantiated by the obvious and explicit evidences.
There I will point out those fallacies one by one.

This argument arrives at the conclusion under the circumstances that the respondents in the first study are those who will go to the public libraries in their spare time. Yet the public libraries are not the only source of the literary classics. With the shopping online more mature, getting their favorite books on the websites such as Amazon have become a more convenient and cheaper choice than the traditional one, that is, turning to the libraries . So it’s not necessary to waste one hour or more on the way to the libraries enduring the crowd on the bus or subway, and what you need is just to click a button and wait for the books patiently. In addition, even if some still opt for the conventional way and enjoy the quiet atmosphere in the libraries, the public ones are not always the ideal options, because the private museums which are open to the citizens for free with their spacious reading rooms and rich stock of the various books are on the rapid increase. Instead of walking to the libraries miles away, more people will take the second win-win choice. Therefore, without considering the other possibilities, the creditability of the deduction by the comparison of the researches will be largely undermined.

Also, the potential presumption behind this argument is that the literary classics are not the mystery novels. But what is the definition of the “literary classics”? Are they the ones which are just written in the past and makes great achievements? In this definition, many books are the combination of the elements of the mystery and literature, such as Homeric epic which has a high status in the history. What’s more, everyone has their own criterion to judge the type of the books, which will result in the imprecise answers in the first study. As a result, the arguer’s conclusion is plausible without a reasonable definition of those two types of the books.


Finally, the distinguish outcomes of the studies may also result from the fashion in the different period. Maybe when the first study is on the going, the government is publicizing the significance of the literary classics to the cultivation of individuals, thus raising residents’ interest on the literature. However, after a few weeks, there is a hot series featuring with the plot of the mystery which brings about the soaring enthusiasm about this kind of book thereby leading to the mounting numbers of big fan of mystery novel. With the lack of the clear time span between the studies and the essential description of the vogue in current society, the trend will have great influence on the consequences of the two studies.

In the nutshell, although the argument, at first glance, appears to be trustful and reliable, it does include several flaws which must be correct. By reckoning for the consistency of the two separate study, the diverse accesses to the literary books and ephemeral fad can the arguer reach a more valid conclusion.



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

Revised By  FINN

=======================
语法问题 批注 精彩句子

The reasoning behind this argument seems to be logical and tenable, however, the conclusion that the respondents fail to represent their opinion on the reading habits bases on a few assumptions which are not substantiated by the obvious and explicit evidences.
There I will point out those fallacies one by one (这个短语是不是有点口语化？…respectively).


This argument arrives at the conclusion under the circumstances that the respondents in the first study are those who will go to the public libraries in their spare time(题目中有这个暗示了吗？题目说是调查当地居民的阅读习惯，只是由大学具体来进行调查，这里有说暗示着被访者常去图说馆一说？). Yet (,) the public libraries are not the only source of the literary classics. With the shopping online more mature (核对下是不是可以这么说，popular), getting their favorite books on the websites such as Amazon have become a more convenient and cheaper choice than the traditional one, that is, turning to the libraries . So it’s (正式文体中应该避免缩写) not necessary to waste one hour or more on the way to the libraries enduring the crowd on the bus or subway, (“.” 前一个意群感觉已经结束了) and what you need is just to click a button and wait for the books patiently. In addition, even if some still opt for the conventional way and enjoy the quiet atmosphere in the libraries, the public ones are not always the ideal options, because the private museums which are open to the citizens for free with their spacious reading rooms and rich stock of the various books are on the rapid increase (and跟什么做并列呢？如果是which… and … 并列后面which做什么差分呢？如果是spacious reading rooms and ….那并列之后应该是名词性的结构但你并列的部分怎么有are呢？本句写的过于冗长 容易出错 可以使用非谓语而避免使用复杂的从句嵌套). Instead of walking to the libraries miles away, more people will take the second
(可以进一步说明下 你前写的太长了后面可能会让人忘了指代的是什么) win-win choice. Therefore, without considering the other possibilities, the creditability of the deduction by the comparison of the researches will be largely undermined.
(我感觉段的论点选的不好，我现在还是不明白到底是你从题目中揣测出作者有这种暗示还是仅仅是你做这种假设？)


Also, the potential presumption behind this argument is that the literary classics are not the mystery novels. But what is the definition of the “literary classics”? Are they the ones which are just written in the past and makes great achievements? In this definition, many books are the combination of the elements of the mystery and literature, such as Homeric epic which has a high status in the history. What’s more, everyone has their own criterion to judge the type of the books, which will result in the imprecise answers in the first study. As a result, the arguer’s conclusion is plausible without a reasonable definition of those two types of the books.
(这段写的论点也很牵强，其实题目还有很多比较明显的错误可以攻击，走这种非主流会拿高分？另外，这段写的像Issue个人觉得。。。)


Finally, the distinguish outcomes of the studies may also result from the fashion in the different period. Maybe when the first study is on the going, the government is publicizing the significance of the literary classics to the cultivation of individuals, thus raising residents’ interest on the literature. However, after a few weeks, there is a hot series featuring with the plot of the mystery which brings about the soaring enthusiasm about this kind of book thereby leading to the mounting numbers of big fan(s?) of mystery novel. With the lack of the clear time span between the studies and the essential description of the vogue in current society, the trend will have great influence (differences) on the consequences of the two studies. (这段攻击的点选的是比较普遍的 但感觉列举他因时有一点偏激呵呵)


In the nutshell, although the argument, at first glance, appears to be trustful and reliable, it does include several flaws which must be correct. By reckoning for the consistency of the two separate study, the diverse accesses to the literary books and ephemeral fad can the arguer reach a more valid conclusion.



小结：1、语法错误较少
2、逻辑攻击点选择的不好
3、句式需要加强，进一步掌握长难句的写法

CypherUID: 2793818

===========
  Logical Chain
===========
慢慢梳理中...后期补上
===========
     论点提纲
===========

===========
     习作正文
===========
In this short passage, the author concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To support his conclusion, he cited a study in which most respondents said they preferred literary classics and a follow-up one conducted by the same group of people revealed that the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries was the mystery novel. However, close scrutiny and consideration would reveal the hidden flaws in the line of reasoning.

To begin with, the two studies were questionable in both sample and procedure. The author fails to provide relevant information about the contents of the study. Perhaps only a small group of people were involved in the study and only those who preferred literary classics actively responded. Or perhaps the questions asked in the study were implicit or misleading thus the respondents gave false answers. Moreover, differences in education background and degree of civilization of the two groups of people involved in the study might also be attributable to the different results of the two studies. Without providing a more convincing study in both sample and procedure, the author could not rely on current ones to draw any conclusion.

Another fatal flaw that weakens the conclusion is the time interval between these two studies. The longer the time span between these two studies, the more likely there would be significant changes in demographic constituent or people's reading inclination and habits, the less valid the effectiveness of two studies are.

Furthermore, the author rests on the false assumption that the type of book most frequently checked out of public libraries reflects what people preferred. It is entirely possible that all these public libraries are abundant in mystery novels but scarce in supply of literary classics, thus resulting in the former's most frequently checking out. Common sense tells us that mystery novels are more pervasive in markets and have a bigger group of authors than literary classics, so it is reasonable to see more mystery novels than literary classics in libraries. Without taking this possibility into account, the author could not convince us that mystery novels are more prevailing among readers.

Finally, the author merely focuses on the area of public libraries. Perhaps most people in this area tend to read in university libraries rather than in public ones. Or perhaps, instead of borrowing books, they choose to buy some from private bookstores or online sellers on the Internet. Without eliminating all these alternative possibilities, the author couldn't justify his conclusion by just examining the condition in public libraries.

In sum, the conclusion reached by the author is untenable as discussed above. To bolster his assertion, he should conduct a more scientific and rigorous study to scrutinize the propensity and habits of readers in this area. To better assess his recommendation I would need more evidence concerning the time interval between these two studies and the amount of mystery novels as well as literary classics available in public libraries.
=======================

Revised By nanfeng25899

=======================  

批改标注:
1。红色，表示“错误”
2。洋红，表示“用法欠妥当”
3。蓝色，是我的批注
4。绿色，表示“很精彩的文字”

In this short passage, the author concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To support his conclusion, he cited a study in which most respondents said they preferred literary classics and a follow-up one conducted by the same group of people revealed that the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries was the mystery novel. However, close scrutiny and consideration would reveal the hidden flaws in the line of reasoning.

To begin with, the two studies were questionable in both sample and procedure. The author fails to provide relevant information about the contents of the study. Perhaps only a small group of people were involved in the study and only those who preferred literary classics actively responded. Or perhaps the questions asked in the study were implicit or misleading thus the respondents gave false answers. Moreover, differences in education background and degree of civilization of the two groups of people involved in the study might also be attributable to the different results of the two studies.
【1 这句话的谬误好像和第一段的the same group相悖。2 be attributable to这个词组用反了】Without providing a more convincing study in both sample and procedure, the author could not rely on current ones to draw any conclusion.

Another fatal flaw that weakens the conclusion is the time interval between these two studies. The longer the time span between these two studies, the more likely there would be significant changes in demographic constituent or people's reading inclination and habits, the less valid the effectiveness of two studies are.【没有深入的分析，有点摆句子的感觉。。。】

Furthermore, the author【是结论不是作者吧。。。】 rests on the false assumption that the type of book most frequently checked out of public libraries reflects what people preferred. It is entirely possible that all these public libraries are abundant in mystery novels but scarce in supply of literary classics, thus resulting in the former's most frequently checking out. Common sense tells us that mystery novels are more pervasive in markets and have a bigger group of authors than literary classics, so it is reasonable to see more mystery novels than literary classics in libraries. Without taking this possibility into account, the author could not convince us that mystery novels are more prevailing among readers.

Finally, the author merely focuses on the area of public libraries. Perhaps most people in this area tend to read in university libraries rather than in public ones. Or perhaps, instead of borrowing books, they choose to buy some from private bookstores or online sellers on the Internet. Without eliminating all these alternative possibilities【选其中一个词其实就成了】, the author couldn't justify his conclusion by just examining the condition【感觉上有点怪】 in public libraries.

In sum, the conclusion reached by the author is untenable as discussed above. To bolster his assertion, he should conduct a more scientific and rigorous study to scrutinize the propensity and habits of readers in this area. To better assess his recommendation I 【we】would need more evidence concerning the time interval between these two studies and the amount of mystery novels as well as literary classics available in public libraries.

综合评价：
1 谬误上，感觉是列举的感觉，最好深入分析一下，一般找2-3个谬误即可‘找的谬误点没有什么问题，但是第二段的攻击点和第一段的陈述相反。。。
2 语言上，有点套句型的感觉
3 语法上，有些主语的问题，其他的错误几乎没有
4 理解上，比较通顺

SandraShanUID: 2753079

===========
  Logical Chain
===========
Study1: respondents saidthey preferred literary classics as reading material
Study2: the type of book most frequently checked out of each public library wasthe mystery novel
è
The first study had misrepresented their readinghabits

===========
     论点提纲
===========
1.调查样本问题。没说两个调查人群的关系。Study1中的有些人可能更倾向于自己买书而不是去图书馆借书
2.没有界定mysterynovel和classic
3.两个study间隔时间是否过长，人们阅读习惯是否已经发生了改变


===========
     习作正文
===========

This argument is underpinned by two separated surveysthat conducted by the university ofLeeville. The first one shows that literaryclassics are the reading materialpreferred by citizens. The other one showsthat the type of book mostfrequently checked out of each of the public librarieswas the mystery novel. According to them, the arguer deduces that therespondents in the first study had misrepresented their readinghabits. However,this argument can’t be convinced because it defies simplelogic and suffers fromseveral fallacies.

To begin with, the arguments does not account for the possibility that thesurvey samples themselves wereflawed. The author failed to give out therelationship between the respondentsof two separated surveys. It is likely thatthose people who answered the first survey didn’t in favor of borrowing books from library. Instead,buying their preferable books is a relatively more commonly used methods .Thus,the representativenessof the results is open to doubt.

Secondly, the author fails to distinguish definitions of these two types ofreading material. Due to the fact that differentpeople have differentdefinition about literary classics, lots of respondentsin the first study mayinclude mystery novel into literary classics. For thisreason, differentdefinitions about literary classics according to different people areresponsible for the difference in the results of these two studies.Accordingly,the result of the two studies is unconvincing.

Thirdly, the arguer does not inform us of the time interval between the twostudies is. It is possible that residents of Leevillechanged their readinghabits during that period.  This possibility further weakens theconclusion that the first respondents misrepresented their readinghabits.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logicalat first, has several flawsas discussed above. in order to strengthen the deductionof his article, theauthor has to research more in order to eliminate the otherpossibilities that Ihave just mentioned.
=======================

Revised By  FINN

=======================
语法问题 批注 精彩句子

This argument is underpinned by two separated surveys that conducted by the university of Leeville. The first one shows that literary classics are the reading material preferred by citizens. The other (second) one shows that the type of book most requently checked out of each of the public libraries was the mystery novel. According to them (?指代清楚), the arguer deduces that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading
habits. However, this argument can’t be convinced because it defies simple ogic and suffers from several fallacies.

To begin with, the arguments does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were (前后时态不一致 描述事实一般现在时就可以了)
flawed. The author failed (fails) to give out the relationship between the respondents of two separated surveys. (作者给出了这两个调查的关系 follow-up就是关系啊) It is likely that those people who answered the first survey didn’t in favor of borrowing books from library. Instead, buying their preferable books is a relatively more commonly used methods(想表达的是？) .Thus, the representativeness  of the results is open to doubt.(前面说的 relationship后面结束说的是representativeness不一致，注意逻辑表达的一致性) (没太看懂你列举他因时想表达的是什么)

Secondly, the author fails to distinguish definitions of these two types of reading material. Due to the fact that different people have different definition about (on) literary classics, lots of respondents in the first study may include mystery novel into literary classics. For this reason, different definitions about literary classics according to different people are responsible for (这个短语的意思是…有责任而不是对….的回应) the difference in the results of these two studies. (前后两句话有些冗余了different people respond to different answers for the two studies as non-uniform definitions on literary classic ) Accordingly, the result of the two studies is unconvincing. (这一句写得没有逻辑的连贯性)

Thirdly, the arguer does not inform us of the time interval between the two studies is(删). It is possible that residents of Leeville changed their reading habits during that period. (逻辑说明不深入) This possibility further weakens the conclusion that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. in (In) order to strengthen the deduction of his article, the author has to research more in order to eliminate the other possibilities that I have just mentioned.


小结：1、注意避免小的语法错误
2、注意均衡每段的字数，作为习作整体字数较少，逻辑论证略显单薄
3、句式需要加强，进一步掌握长难句的写法
4、逻辑攻击应该进一步深入



Revised By Finn
2010-5-10

小肯0113UID: 2590901

===========
  Logical Chain
===========

受调查者说自己偏好经典/古典文学
图书馆出借的书却以 神秘小说居多
两个调查者主导者一样，
结论前者错误

===========
     论点提纲
===========

没有说明两个调查的具体时间，因为阅读习惯容易受流行文化的影响
只能说明more people want to try mystery book versus buy them。
也许是misinformed

===========
     习作正文
===========

According to the two unrelated conclusions of the studies about reading habit of Leeville citizen, conducted by University of Leeville, the author believes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits when they said that they prefer classic literary materials but the most frequently checked out books at public library are mystery novel. It is assertive to say the conclusion of first study is wrong, but put it into certain circumstances first. Reasons are presented below.

First of all, the author didn’t state the specific time when those two studies were conducted. As we know, time is one of the most important elements in research, the author must state the specific time of the studies to make it more receivable. Certain time periods can have different pop cultures, which are influential to reading habits of citizen. For instance, The Da Vinci Code was really popular at 2004-2005, and raised the fashion of mystery novels. But people don’t always read books like The Da Vinci Code, as they move on from one pop culture to another. On the other hand, reading habits mean people choose certain materials to read in a stable, long-term fashion. Citizens in Leeville may prefer classic literature but are also influenced by certain pop culture of “fashion” at certain time period. Because of the lack of time evidence, the author can’t just say the citizen misrepresent their reading habits.

Secondly, people tend to try those books that they are not sure they will like it. It is possible that people like to try mystery book than own it. The second study just shows that people borrow more mystery books than literary classics which mean people don’t want to pay for the mystery book. Leeville citizens may prefer paying for literary classics other than borrowing it. For example, one of my friends who enjoy reading classic literature always buys books instead of borrowing them, because he can make notes on the book and he can read it whenever he wants. The author needs more details to support his/her conclusion. He/she must show the numbers in certain time period of different type of books are sold at the local book store and then compare it with the numbers concluded in the second study and come up with the solution.

However, it is possible that the respondents are misinformed or the study itself lacks a confirming measure. Maybe respondents have different understanding of “prefer” when it comes to buying or borrowing a book, or there is no question to confirm if the respondent respond the study seriously. Also, it is true that respondents may lie in a questionnaire or an interview to make themselves seem more cultured and educated, but that’s not the majority.

In conclusion, it is necessary for the author of the conclusion to show more details to support his idea. As every study is conducted in a certain circumstance, researchers must consider their study under it; in that way they can say the result of their study is reliable or right.

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

Revised By hebill
According to the two unrelatedconclusions of the studies about reading habit of Leeville citizen, conductedby University of Leeville, the author believes that the respondents in thefirst study had misrepresented their reading habits when they said that theyprefer classic literary materials but the most frequently checked out books atpublic library are mystery novels. It is assertive to say the conclusion offirst study is wrong, but put it into certain circumstances first. Reasons are presented below.
First of all, the author didn’t state the specific timewhen those two studies were conducted. As we know, time is one of the mostimportant elements in research, （缺少连接词这里）the author must state the specific time of the studies to make itmore receivable. Certain（改为different 是不是会更贴切） time periods can have（generate，产生） different pop cultures, which are influential to reading habitsof citizen. For instance,
The Da Vinci Code was
really popular at2004-2005, and raised the fashion of mystery novels. But people don’t alwaysread books like
The Da Vinci Code, as they move on fromone pop culture to another. On the other hand, reading habits mean peoplechoose certain materials to read in a stable, long-term fashion. Citizens inLeeville may prefer classic literature but are also influenced by certain popculture of “fashion” at certain time period. Because of the lack of timeevidence, the author can’t just say the citizen misrepresent their readinghabits.论述的时候最好再写上因为达芬奇密码的风靡，图书馆在那段时间借阅mystery book的数量就会猛增，而这很有可能正是第二个调查的时间段，由此推出第一个调查很有可能并不是misrepresent。
Secondly, people tend to try those books that they are notsure they will like it. It is possible that people like to try mystery book rather thanown it. The second study just shows that people borrow more mystery books thanliterary classics which means people don’t want to pay for themystery book. Leeville citizens may prefer paying for literary classics otherthan borrowing it. For example, one of my friends who enjoy reading classicliterature always buys books instead of borrowing them, because he can makenotes on the book and he can read it whenever he wants. The author needs moredetails to support his/her conclusion. He/she must show the numbers in certaintime period of different type of books are sold at the local book store and then ，compare it with the numbers concluded in the second study and comeup with the solution.

However, it is possible that the respondents aremisinformed or the study itself lacks a confirming measure. Maybe respondentshave different understanding of “prefer” when it comes to buying or borrowing abook, or there is no question to confirm if the respondent respond the studyseriously. Also, it is true that respondents may lie in a questionnaire or aninterview to make themselves seem more cultured and educated, but that 这个that指代的是什么，似乎不太明确，是说“大家想让自己看起来更有文化的”这个现象吗？’s not the majority.

In conclusion, it is necessary for the author of theconclusion to show more details to support his idea. As every study isconducted in a certain circumstance, researchers must consider their studyunder it; 还有他们对待preferred book 和一般书籍的不同态度，这个应该在总结里提到的。in that way they can say the result of their study is reliable orright.

=======================
红色是我觉得需要修改的地方
以上我自己的一点修改意见，也请小肯多多指教，互相切磋，共同杀G ^_^


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

hebillUID: 2532108

Argument 161
===========
  Logical Chain
===========
1 most respondents said they preferredliterary classics as reading material.
2 a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that thetype of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leevillewas the mystery novel.
3 conclusion: the respondents in the firststudy had misrepresented their reading habits.
===========
     论点提纲
===========
1 whether the number of the respondents islarge enough to represent the whole inhabitants in Leevile is a factor thatshould be reconsidered. （这条后来没有写，觉得不好说理，毕竟是科学的研究，样本数量应该不是问题）
2 when did the follow-up study conduct? wasit close enough to the former one ?if not, researchers can't affirm that thetwo surgeries are relative.
3 the researchers have failed to considerother causes accounting for the consequence. During the time frame of thefollow-up study, there were likely to be a time when some best-selling moviesadapted by mystery novels were released/showed.
4 One may borrow books from publiclibraries. Obviously it is not the only way for citizens to get reading material.They are more likely to collect his/her favorite books from bookstores.
5 Again, the demographics of the populationare important. It is possible that a quite large number of inhabitants visitingthe libraries more frequently are teenagers for whom the mystery novels aretheir special loved ones.（这条没有写，觉得和第二条有重叠）
===========
     习作正文
===========
The argument in related to disagreement with studies of reading habits of Leeville citizens seems logical, but not very reasonable. It is stated that in the first study, most respondents showed their preference with literary classics as reading material while a follow-up study organized by the same researchers found that the mystery novels were most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leeville., the author of this argument therefore affirms that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. However, the author ignored the fact that social problems with complexity usually lied in factors of various aspects.

To begin with, the arguer is failing to consider other possible reasons accounting for the difference between two studies. When did the follow-up study conduct? Was it a quite long interval between the two researches? If so, researchers can hardly allege that the two surveys are related with each other. As time goes by, people in Leeville may alter their reading habits thoroughly. At the time when the first research was conducted, it is possible that more senior citizens in Leeville preferred literary classics as reading material. Then there was such a big time span between the two surveys that when it came to the second survey, the proportion of the population was transformed, that is to say more younger people inhabited in Leeville. So teenagers and younger people regarding the mystery novels as their favorites consisted the majority of the population. In addition, obviously, except the public libraries, citizens can get reading material in many other ways. Students can borrow books from libraries in their school. Adults may buy books from bookstores while some other preferred to read online. Researchers can hardly evaluate the reading habits of people in Leeville merely from the data of public libraries.

Moreover, some incidents may lead to the different preferences in two surveys. Such incidents may include the fact that at the time when the second study went, there was likely to be a best-selling movie adapted by mystery novels, which accounted for the popularity of mystery novels. People were easily affected by mass media. In other words, mass media played an important role in reading habits of people. People may change their reading habits temporarily due to their guide.

Overall, the argument is well-presented as stated above, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. It is reasonable for them to doubt their results of studies. However, the conclusion should be made after the researchers evaluate all possible factors and causes for the inconformity between the two studies.



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

Revised By shevava

=======================   

shevavaUID: 2574709

来晚了......

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓

                                                             【1010G精英组】E小组第10次作业

〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓〓

Argument007

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.

"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member

of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council,

because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past

year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the

local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green,

the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

                                 写作样式模板

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

===========
  Logical Chain
===========

===========
     论点提纲
===========

===========
     习作正文
===========

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

Revised By

=======================   

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

拍文顺序

1-->10

6-->4

4-->3

7-->1

3-->6

11-->7

10-->11

●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●○●

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

===========
  Logical Chain
===========

1 Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition
2 Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council
3 the number of factories in Clearview has doubled---> air pollution levels have increased
4 local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses
5 3,4---> the current members are not protecting our environment
1,2,5--> we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved

===========
     论点提纲
===========

1 不能说明市委委员没有很好地保护环境
2 没保护好不是Frank Braun问题
3 Ann Green是否比Frank Braun胜任

===========
     习作正文
===========

In this letter, the author appeals to elect Ann Green rather than Frank Braun as the mayor of Clearview, because the arguer believes Ann Green can well handle the environmental problems. Then, the author points out the fact—the increasing air pollution and the growing number of patients with respiratory illnesses in local hospitals—to strengthen his conclusion. This letter suffers some critical flaws that after close scrutiny of evidence that seriously undermine the conclusion and accordingly is not thoroughly well-reasoned. The main flaws of the argument will be discussed respectively.

To begin with, the author provides no evidence to prove the Clearview town suffering severe environmental problems. On the one hand, with the development of modern industrialization, the pollution to local area is inevitable. What’s more, the environment itself has the natural self-purification capability as long as the pollution is not so bad. On the other hand, the growing number of patients with respiratory illnesses in local hospitals does not necessarily indicate that the degree of pollution has been escalating. It is highly possible that the local hospitals are good at treating respiratory illnesses. Hence, the patients from the neighborhood are crowding into the Clearview town, which is the real explanation for the increasing numbers of patients in the loacl area.

In the second place, even if the Clearview town has a harsh pollution problem, the author is also unfair to blame the members of the Clearview town council for their not protecting local environment. There is no cause-and-effect relationship between the doubled number of factories in Clearview and the escalating pollution problem. It is entirely possible that the tail gas from innumerable cars and the large quantity of living garbage result in pollution even worse. In addition, the council members may not have enough power to well control the situation of pollution as laws are imperfect in Clearview. Maybe, the council members are trying their best to take serious measures to improve the legal system and to implement and enforce the law. However, this will take time to fulfill members’ promises, and the severe  situation of pollution problem is just for the time being.

The last but not the least, even if the council members are not protecting local environment, the letter depends on the unwarranted assumption that Frank Braun is not concerned about and should be responsible for the listed environmental problems. Maybe, he realizes the situation that the current council members take no count of environmental problems. That’s why Frank Braun takes the mayoral election as an opportunity to justify the mistakes. In addition, just because Ann Green from the Good Earth Coalition, while Frank Braun from the Clearview town council, the letter provides no other reliable evidence to indicate Ann Green would do better job than Frank Braun in dealing with the pollution problem.

To sum up, this argument, while seems well-supported at first, has several flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and not persuasive as it stands. Yet, it could be substantiated by provide more detailed information about the pollution problem in Clearview town. In addition, to further bolster the conclusion, the arguer should provide trustworthy evidence that the Ann Green is the best candidate for the mayor of Clearview rather than Frank Braun. Accordingly, only with more logical reasoning could this letter turn out to be more than emotional appeal.

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

Revised By nanfeng25899  

=======================   

批改标注:
1。红色，表示“错误”
2。洋红，表示“用法欠妥当”
3。蓝色，是我的批注
4。绿色，表示“很精彩的文字”

In this letter, the author appeals to elect Ann Green rather than Frank Braun as the mayor of Clearview, because the arguer believes Ann Green can well handle the environmental problems. Then, the author points out the fact—the increasing air pollution and the growing number of patients with respiratory illnesses in local hospitals—to strengthen his conclusion. This letter suffers some critical flaws that after close scrutiny【意思上感觉有点重复scrutiny就是仔细检查的意思】 of evidence that seriously undermine the conclusion and accordingly is not thoroughly well-reasoned.【语法有问题，that是flaw的定语从句么？】 The main flaws of the argument will be discussed respectively.

To begin with, the author provides no evidence to prove the Clearview town suffering severe environmental problems. On the one hand, with the development of modern industrialization, the pollution to local area is inevitable. What’s more, the environment itself has the natural self-purification capability as long as the pollution is not so bad.【环境的自净能力其实一直都有，并不是以环境污染的严重程度为条件的，建议前面改成承受污染的能力】 On the other hand, the growing number of patients with respiratory illnesses in local hospitals does not necessarily indicate that the degree of pollution has been escalating.【escalate这个词用的很好】 It is highly possible that the local hospitals are good at treating respiratory illnesses. Hence, the patients from the neighborhood are crowding into the Clearview town, which is the real explanation for the increasing numbers of patients in the loacl area.
【本段的攻击的两个点其实我建议分开说，可能深入一点更有说服力吧。比如第一个谬误，工厂并没有说是否会污染环境】

In the second place, even if the Clearview town has a harsh pollution problem, the author is also unfair to blame the members of the Clearview town council for their not protecting local environment. There is no cause-and-effect relationship between the doubled number of factories in Clearview and the escalating pollution problem. It is entirely possible that the tail gas from innumerable cars and the large quantity of living garbage result in pollution even worse. In addition, the council members may not have enough power to well control the situation of pollution as laws are imperfect in Clearview. Maybe, the council members are trying their best to take serious measures to improve the legal system and to implement and enforce the law. However, this will take time to fulfill members’ promises, and the severe situation of pollution problem is just for the time being.
【本段谬误的攻击点有点牵强，council的政策肯定会影响到环境，如果是实施的不好，这也应该是council的责任吧，也应该责备他们。个人看法。。。】

The last but not the least, even if the council members are not protecting local environment, the letter depends on the unwarranted assumption that Frank Braun is not concerned about and should be responsible for the listed environmental problems. Maybe, he realizes the situation that the current council members take no count of environmental problems. That’s why Frank Braun takes the mayoral election as an opportunity to justify the mistakes. In addition, just because Ann Green from the Good Earth Coalition, while Frank Braun from the Clearview town council, the letter provides no other reliable evidence to indicate Ann Green would do better job than Frank Braun in dealing with the pollution problem.

To sum up, this argument, while seems well-supported at first, has several flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and not persuasive as it stands. Yet, it could be substantiated by provide【providing】 more detailed information about the pollution problem in Clearview town. In addition, to further bolster the conclusion, the arguer should provide trustworthy evidence that the Ann Green is the best candidate for the mayor of Clearview rather than Frank Braun. Accordingly, only with more logical reasoning could this letter turn out to be more than emotional appeal.


综合评价：
1 这篇文章明显比你以前写得好很多，很多句子和词用的很好~~~语法错误很少
2 个人觉得有的谬误可能分开写更有说服力，其实指出的谬误不在于多，关键在于找到关键的谬误后，深入地分析它们。