1010G零散版友作文互改帖（Argument）

figuechenUID: 2850619

改75

TOPIC: ARGUMENT185 - The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."
WORDS: 325 -- 532         TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010/7/22 11:46:03

Associating the modification implemented and the fact that Sunnyside Corporation (SC), the author assumed that the restraint would result in a considerable savings and then on the assumption that no other big problems would be brought besides some complains, he recommended that restricting water flow would be spread to all the 20 floors. However, that is not the case and since he made a wrong inference on the result restricting flow may cause, didn't consider the complains [complaints?] would damage the firm and the unexpected reactions of other residents to the plan, the suggestion is not so tempting as it appeared at the first glance.
[开头先简要概括了题目，然后点出了三个要攻击的点。]

Foremost, the author made an experiment on the first floors of Sunnyside Towers (ST) to make sure the influence the adjustment may bring to residents and SC. But it is too hasty to conclude that the plan will certainly help SC decrease costs. On one hand, since no readings of water usage is obtained no evidence illustrating that the usage may be remained. It is highly possible that the restriction will force dwellers find some methods to meet their need of water, like increase the time of using water. On the other hand, the price of water is also not mentioned. Maybe the fluctuation of price of water per unit is the true reason to the decreasing costs. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot persuade me that the modification result in a considerable savings to SC.
[这段反驳该措施会节省花费的做法，一方面可能流量不变，另一方面可能价格会变。]

What's more, the author admitted that some bad impressions will be left on the consumers of SC because of the adjustment. People will complain about the low water pressure and the author failed to figure out the measures to handle this problem. It is likely that residents may consider changing the company providing their water or maybe this incident will also worse [这里有语法错误，谓语动词呢？]others’ impression on our company, which may decrease our potential consumers and our profits at the same time. And then the bad image will be spread further and cause more lost of consumers. Without finding a method to rebuild our image and tackle the chain reaction, it is not wise to adopt this plan at the risk of losing consumers.
[这段说该公司没有应对投诉的办法。个人认为这段的攻击性不是太强，可以考虑说没有投诉不等于没有问题。毕竟原文已经说了投诉很少，再说投诉会造成问题好像有点不太合乎常理。]

Last but not least, the owner also didn't take the difference between first 5 floors and all the 20 floors into consideration. Even if the restraint and the impact did not incur the dislike of residents on first 5 floors, it can be necessarily that other inhabitants will not deprecate that since decreasing amount of water may be more obvious to them and conduce to more inconvenience to their lives, which can lead to the same possible results mentioned above and may bring more damage to SC. Unless we can make sure that all people in ST will not reject the adjustment, the modification cannot be casually carried out.
[这段说5层能实施的未必20层能实施，主要写了居民会反对。我觉得这个理由不是太好，因为刚才已经说过投诉和居民反对的问题了。可以考虑说20层太高了，减少那么多水压水就打不上去了。]

In conclusion, to strengthen the argument and make the recommendation more adoptable, the owner must provide that the plan can truly help SC save money and offer enough methods to deal with the problems caused as well. Besides, he also need [needs] to do the survey to ensure that it can be accepted by residents on all 20 floors. Thus, the project may be more reasonable and feasible.

全文的批驳点基本都到位了，语言可能还需要进一步地锤炼。在批驳错误的时候，反例有时不够有力，如果能在这方面加强的话可能会更好。

另外no complaint的问题可以批驳，在本文中应该还是一个比较重要的批驳点，可以考虑代替原文中的批驳点，毕竟前者更有力一些。

figuechenUID: 2850619

TOPIC: ARGUMENT106 - The following editorial appeared in a newspaper in the country of Solaria.

"The Eliot Valley region was primarily agricultural twenty years ago. In the past twenty years, however, many computer-chip manufacturers have opened factories there. A recent study found that water pollution in the region was worse than in any other region in the country. Moreover, the computer-chip factories, which use large quantities of water to manufacture the chips, are probably responsible for the low levels of water in the region's lakes and reservoirs. Therefore, if the region's computer-chip makers had limits placed on the amount of water they could use, water quality would improve."
WORDS: 532          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-7-24 17:22:16

    The author suggested in the editorial that computer-chip makers in the region should have limits on the amount of water they could use in order to improve the water quality. The argument which seems to be compelling at first glance actually masks many alternative counter examples and therefore unconvincing it stands.
    Initially, the author might be assigning a false clause to the water pollution. The author fails to provide evidence to indicate that computer-chip manufacturers are indeed the reason for water pollution. There might be factors other than computer-chip makers that lead to the serious pollution. For instance, some oil companies might have established their branch factories in Eliot Valley ten years ago and brought huge pollution to the water system there; or perhaps the environmental situation in the whole country was worse than twenty years ago. Eliot Valley might be doing better than most of the regions in the country, which illustrates that computer-chip companies might not cause any pollution. Without further evidence to prove that it is computer-chip manufacturers that result in the water pollution, the author cannot confidently draw the claim that the water pollution was owing to the computer-chip manufacturers.
    In addition, it is presumptuous for the author to judge that computer-chip makers are attributable to the low levels of water in the region according to the mere fact that these factories consume large amount of water. Firstly, the computer-chip factories might not use the water in the region. It is possible that they are using water from other regions. Moreover, other reasons might also explain the changes of water levels. Perhaps the climate this year is unusual and brings about the low levels of water; or perhaps over-consumption of underground water is the true reason for low levels of water. Unless the author provide more evidence to eliminate these possibilities, otherwise it is hard for me to accept the claim that low levels of water is due to the water consumption of computer-chip factories.
    What's more, the claim that the water quality would rise if the restrictions were taken rests on the unsubstantiated assumption and thereby is open to doubt. One point is that the limits against the quantity of water used might not have relationship with the quality of the water. Perhaps those factories do not release the polluted water into the river. The second point is that common sense tells me that it is easier to pollute water than to recover it. The water quality would not improve unless certain measures designed to eliminate the pollutants in the river are taken. As long as the water is continuously used, the quality of the water will get only worse. Without taking these possibilities into consideration, the author cannot convince me that the measures taken will surely improve the water quality.
    In sum, there is nowhere more ridiculous than the advice that the limits against water usage of computer-chip makers should be adopted to improve the water quality. To better support his claim, the author has to provide extra evidence to make sure that computer-chip makers are the decisive factors in determining the level and quality of water, together with the evidence that the restrictions will work.

恳请楼下狠拍，先谢~

tyarelUID: 2756223

TOPIC: ARGUMENT106 - The following editorial appeared in a newspaper in the country of Solaria.

"The Eliot Valley region was primarily agricultural twenty years ago. In the past twenty years, however, many computer-chip manufacturers have opened factories there. A recent study found that water pollution in the region was worse than in any other region in the country. Moreover, the computer-chip factories, which use large quantities of water to manufacture the chips, are probably responsible for the low levels of water in the region's lakes and reservoirs. Therefore, if the region's computer-chip makers had limits placed on the amount of water they could use, water quality would improve."
WORDS: 532          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-7-24 17:22:16

    The author suggested in the editorial that computer-chip makers in the region should have limits on the amount of water they could use in order to improve the water quality. The argument which seems to be compelling at first glance actually masks many alternative counter examples and therefore unconvincing it stands.
首段内桶简洁，但是还是建议修改一下，从首段看不出原文的主要逻辑链或者下文可能的反驳点，没有起到统领全文的作用，相反还在一些比较模板化的字句上浪费太多字数。The argument which seems to be compelling at first glance actually masks many alternative counter examples and therefore unconvincing it stands. 从这句中完全看不到有用的信息，建议修改下，更有内容

Initially, the author might be assigning a false clause to the water pollution. The author fails to provide evidence to indicate that computer-chip manufacturers are indeed the reason for water pollution. There might be factors other than computer-chip makers that lead to the serious pollution. For instance, some oil companies might have established their branch factories in Eliot Valley ten years ago and brought huge pollution to the water system there; or perhaps the environmental situation in the whole country was worse than twenty years ago. Eliot Valley might be doing better than most of the regions in the country, which illustrates that computer-chip companies might not cause any pollution[1]. Without further evidence to prove that it is computer-chip manufacturers that result in the water pollution, the author cannot confidently draw the claim that the water pollution was owing to the computer-chip manufacturers. (前后有点重复了，可以精简一下句子)
[1]这个例子的使用有欠妥当。EV的污染状况有没有好转与电脑公司是否是主要污染之间并没有主要关系。并不能说电脑公司入住之后污染情况好转了，就认为公司不是污染源了，这里的逻辑还需注意。

    In addition, it is presumptuous for the author to judge that computer-chip makers are attributable to the low levels of water in the region according to the mere fact that these factories consume large amount of water. Firstly, the computer-chip factories might not use the water in the region. It is possible that they are using water from other regions. Moreover, other reasons might also explain the changes of water levels. Perhaps the climate this year is unusual and brings about the low levels of water; or perhaps over-consumption of underground water is the true reason for low levels of water. Unless the author provides more evidence to eliminate these possibilities, otherwise it is hard for me to accept the claim that low levels of water is due to the water consumption of computer-chip factories. (otherwise的使用好象没有必要,“除非…否则”,这个表达有点中式，事实上只需要unless就可以了。另外可以考虑用conclusion,　statement什么的代替claim，保持文字的多样性)

    What's more, the claim that the water quality would rise if the restrictions were taken rests on the unsubstantiated assumption and thereby is open to doubt. One point is that the limits against the quantity of water used might not have relationship with the quality of the water. Perhaps those factories do not release the polluted water into the river. The second point is that common sense tells me[2] that it is easier to pollute water than to recover it. The water quality would not improve unless certain measures designed to eliminate the pollutants in the river are taken. As long as the water is continuously used, the quality of the water will get only worse. (说得太绝对了，不建议)　Without taking these possibilities into consideration, the author cannot convince me that the measures taken will surely improve the water quality.
[2] 个人感觉argu里还是不要出现common sense这类过于主观的表达了，毕竟考的是逻辑不是常识，有时候逻辑正确甚至是可以推翻常识的,这么写太不严谨了

    In sum, there is nowhere more ridiculous(个人觉得这个也用得不太合适，语气太重了，不过这纯粹是个人语感，可斟酌) than the advice that the limits against water usage of computer-chip makers should be adopted to improve the water quality. To better support his claim, the author has to provide extra evidence to make sure that computer-chip makers are the decisive factors in determining the level and quality of water, together with the evidence that the restrictions will work.

文章语句很顺畅，没有什么大的语法问题，感觉个别用词上还需斟酌一下。
结构很清楚，主要逻辑漏洞都抓到了。建议把一二两个反驳段顺序换一下，因为无论从原文行文顺序来看还是从逻辑链来看，author都是从report→CCM导致low level再+pollution→CCM导致pollution，所以以这个顺序行文显得你的逻辑更清晰
首段写的太过模板化了，换个文章换个结论全都都可以套进去，不太建议，首段一来起不到提纲挈领的作用，二来信息量太小。建议看看这个帖子https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1073291-1-1.html
以上是个人意见，希望有用～

tyarelUID: 2756223

TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."
WORDS: 482         TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010/7/26 12:03:19

Based on the global warming trend, supposing that deer cannot follow their migration patterns and associating the report, the author conclude that the ice melting caused by high temperature is the major contributor to the decline in arctic deer populations. However, that is not the case and the conclusion is not as plausible as it seems at first glance.

Admittedly, warming is the tendency of global climate nowadays. However, there still exist some questions that whether it will prevent arctic deer following their age-old patterns. No evidence has been provided that the ice in Canada’s arctic region melts actually. If it is true ice still remains, how can it be obtained that the patterns disappear? Without further researches about the situation of deer's immigrate patterns, it cannot persuade me that arctic deer cannot follow their old-age patterns.

Even the patterns are changed, the report cited by the author also fail to offer enough information to illustrate whether deer populations is decline indeed. Since it is not easy to estimate deer populations, the result of report is not convincing. Even scientists, with a lot of facilities may neglect a large number of arctic deer, let alone hunters just estimating the numbers on their own. Moreover, the change of habitat or immigrate patterns may also lead to the fallacious conclusion. Hence, the result of reports is quite questionable because it cannot be proved the report offered by hunters must be correct and thus the according conclusion that population of arctic deer declines is weak.

Last but not least, even those mentioned are all like the author's hypothesis, the editorial still didn't illustrate why not following patterns is the major reason induce  the decline. Many other factors are not considered in the argument. It's possible that the global warming has more significant impact on the environment that may cause the decrease of deer's food. Those plants may not suitable to the warming weather and extinct in that area. And it's natural that the population will decline since food is not enough to deer. Meanwhile, the author also not take human's influence into account. Perhaps, the population of Canadian is rise and many Canadian has to move to the area which was the habitat of deer. So in order to live there, people build roads or other buildings which decrease the area these arctic deer can live and cause the decrease the number of these deer. Without ruling out all these potential possibilities, the author's attributing decline in populations to climate and change of immigration patterns is weak.

All in all, the author should supply more research on whether the tendency of global temperature change really is really influential to arctic deer's migration patterns and more information demonstrating that number of deer is decreasing as well. Besides, more analysis is needed to show that the change of those mentioned is the only reason to the decline.

谢谢lx～

清水风铃_nonoUID: 2809777

Based on the global warming trend, supposing that deer cannot follow their migration patterns and associating the report, the author conclude that the ice melting caused by high temperature is the major contributor to the decline in arctic deer populations. However, that is not the case and the conclusion is not as plausible as it seems at first glance.

Admittedly, warming is the tendency of global climate nowadays. However, there still exist some questions that whether it will prevent arctic deer following their age-old patterns. No evidence has been provided that the ice in Canada’s arctic region melts actually. If it is true ice still remains, how can it be obtained that the patterns disappear? Without further researches about the situation of deer's immigrate patterns, it cannot persuade me that arctic deer cannot follow their old-age patterns.(段意 :最近有ice melt 不代表这里的ice也melt了，没问题。需要注意的是，这里的逻辑错误实际上有两点，一个是“在此之后，因此之故”，也就是鹿的数量减少，同时有报道说冰化了，作者就将其等同为因为冰化了，所以鹿减少，这是逻辑谬误。另外一点是本文提到的这一点，这里的冰不一定化了。相比而言，个人感觉攻击前者的强度更大。)

Even the patterns are changed, the report cited by the author also fail to offer enough information to illustrate whether deer populations is decline indeed. Since it is not easy to estimate deer populations, the result of report is not convincing. Even scientists,（去掉逗号） with a lot of （plenty of）facilities may neglect a large number of arctic deer, let alone hunters just estimating the numbers on their own. Moreover, the change of habitat or immigrate patterns may also lead to the fallacious conclusion. Hence, the result of reports is quite questionable because it cannot be proved （that,形式主语的that不能省略） the report offered by hunters must be correct and thus the according conclusion that population of arctic deer declines is weak.（段意：谁说鹿的数量真的少了）

Last but not least, even those mentioned are all like the author's hypothesis, the editorial still didn't illustrate why not following patterns is the major reason induce  the decline. Many other factors are not considered in the argument.(这个点找的是正确的，只是有一点，作者的逻辑错误在于错误把鹿的数量下降和冰化了这两个事实总结为鹿的数量下降是因为迁徙受阻，而前文从未提过迁徙的事儿。这个逻辑错误是“Not Follow”明确这一点，再列举他因才会更有力。) It's possible that the global warming has more significant impact on the environment that may cause the decrease of deer's food. Those plants may not suitable to the warming weather and extinct in that area. And it's natural that the population will decline since food is not enough to deer. Meanwhile, the author also not take human's influence into account. Perhaps, the population of Canadian is rise and many Canadian has to move to the area which was the habitat of deer. So in order to live there, people build roads or other buildings which decrease the area these arctic deer can live and cause the decrease the number of these deer. Without ruling out all these potential possibilities, the author's attributing decline in populations to climate and change of immigration patterns is weak.

All in all, the author should supply more research on whether the tendency of global temperature change really is really influential to arctic deer's migration patterns and more information demonstrating that number of deer is decreasing as well. Besides, more analysis is needed to show that the change of those mentioned is the only reason to the decline.


总体来说，语言没有什么大问题。行文很流畅，没有什么阻碍理解的点。
文章的逻辑点的位置都找得比较准确，只是正文第一段和第三段的说理还可以逻辑性再强一些。建议板油阅读一下ETS官方的argu逻辑点（如果你有作文大讲堂的话在285页）另外也可以参考板内“argu也可以这样写”系列，本人受益匪浅~argu最重要的是逻辑，既然已经过了语言关，那就加强逻辑~~再接再厉~

清水风铃_nonoUID: 2809777

ARGUMENT9 - The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.

"Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors."
WORDS 528(改后) 时间：1h

提纲：
1.        两个学校不能比较
2.        教师评价体系不一定没有效果
3.        提高就业率需要从学生入手，加强与就业相关的

The arguer is attempted to find the reason why graduates of Omega University have not been as smooth as graduates from Alpha University. The argument assert that grades inflation the only reason, which lake of concerns about other factors that lead to the difference between the two Universities. Plus, the evaluation system is criticized.

The most apparent mistake in this argument is that the employers believe that the grades inflation forms the difference between the two schools, without concerning other factors that may affect the rate of employment. For example, if students of Alpha University are smart before they are admitted, having more competitive abilities of learning, which is desirable to employers that looks for future employees. Plus, the facilities like library and laboratories can be much more convenient to Alpha University students then to Omega student, whom do not have easy access to various information and research experience. Nevertheless, it might be true that Alpha University provides programs that are hot currently in the society like business management and accounting, while Omega University only have anthropology program, or other programs that requires further study before graduate. In a word, the two schools are different; more observation should be conducted before comparison.

Even if the conditions of the two schools are comparable, the argument does not provide enough information to demonstrate that it is the evaluation system is invalid. It is clear that grades improvement occurs after the implement of evaluating procedure, but not possibly as a result of it. On the contrary, student evaluation is an effective way for students to speak their voices and helps to improve the class. It can be true that professors do enhance their methods of teaching, and students do acquire much more knowledge in class thus qualifies higher grades. In this way, inflation, if any, are so modest that they will be wiped out by effective improvement of the quality of education. Moreover, note that the evaluation procedure was implemented 15 years ago. Other conditions various during the one and a half decades. For instance, it may be that a significant change of grading system, or that the society take college education more seriously, and student studies assiduously and persevering that lead to the level up of scores.

Provided that students of Omega perform well at school, it does not indicate that they have the abilities to take jobs. Instead of sticking their minds on the evaluation system, staffs of Omega should concern other aspects to improve the employment of graduates, such as to offer pre-occupation trainings for graduates students. Performing a career is different from learning at school. Communication skills, team work and leadership is highly required, but are not learnt in regular class. In some career, employers may prefer the one with nice presentation skills to the one too shy to talk to others when both of them have satisfying grades. It is the duty of school to help graduate students to be compatible with their career.

In summary, the given argument is not persuasive to terminate student evaluation. Omega should deep analysis the reason of lack of employment and helps more students to set out for their career.

b6ppUID: 2770374

有问题的部分用下划线标出，修改意见用【】表示。
ARGUMENT9 - The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.
"Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors."
WORDS 528(改后) 时间：1h
提纲：
1.两个学校不能比较
2.教师评价体系不一定没有效果
3.提高就业率需要从学生入手，加强与就业相关的

The arguer is【删除is】 attempted to find the reason why graduates of Omega University have not been as smooth as graduates from Alpha University. The argument assert that grades inflation【添加seems to be】 the only reason, which lake【lacks】 of【删除of】 concerns about other factors that 【添加would】lead to the difference【differences】 between the two Universities. Plus, the evaluation system is【should be】 criticized.

The most apparent mistake in this argument is that the employers believe that the grades inflation forms the difference between the two schools, without concerning other factors that may affect the rate of employment. For example, if students of Alpha University are smart before they are admitted, having more competitive abilities of learning, which is desirable to employers that looks for future employees.
【这句话只有if从句，没主句。可改为：It is quite possible that students of Alpha University are smart enough and have more competitive abilities of learning, which is desirable to employers that are looking for future employees.】 Plus, the facilities like library and laboratories can【might】 be much more convenient to Alpha University students then【than】 to Omega student, whom【who】 do not have easy access to various information and research experience. Nevertheless, it might be true that Alpha University provides programs that are hot currently in the society【in current society】like business management and accounting, while Omega University only have anthropology program, or other programs that requires further study before graduate【having a job】. In a word【注意：in a word后面只能跟一个单词，而不能跟一句话，例如，This movie is, in a word, boring.。可改为In sum】, the two schools are different; more observation【observations】 should be conducted before comparison.
【以上一段最后一句分析不到位，只说明了两校可能存在不同，但未说明“因为这种不同所以不能机械照搬经验而废除评价”】

Even if the conditions of the two schools are comparable, the argument does not provide enough information to demonstrate that it is the evaluation system is invalid【Omega’s the evaluation system does not work successfully】. It is clear that grades improvement occurs after the implement of evaluating procedure, but not possibly
as a result of it.【这句话把逻辑搞混乱了。到底分数提高是不是评价体系的作用？建议删掉。】On the contrary, student evaluation is an effective way for students to speak their voices and【添加then】helps to improve the class. It can be true that professors do enhance their methods of teaching, and students do acquire much more knowledge in class thus qualifies【achieving】higher grades. In this way, inflation, if any, are so modest that they will be wiped out by effective improvement of the quality of education. Moreover, note that the evaluation procedure was implemented 15 years ago. Other conditions various during the one and a half decades. For instance, it may【there may】be that【删除that】 a significant change of grading system, or that【删除that】the society take college education more seriously,【删除逗号】and student studies【students study so】 assiduously and perseveringly that lead to the level up of scores【the scores became higher than before】.
【以上一段大体意思是对的，但是思路不够清楚。建议思路：论者没有提供有力证据证明学生的实际水平没有比以前有所提高，或是教师的确在给一些能力不高的学生打高分。因为评价体系的实施本身就是希望教师重视学生的意见，从而提高教学水平，最终提高学生的能力，而分数的提高是一个很重要的参数。而论断武断地将整体提升的分数归结为教师不真诚的行为，对学生和教师都非常不公平。】

Provided that students of Omega perform well at school, it does not indicate that they have the abilities to take jobs. Instead of【Besides】sticking their minds on the evaluation system, staffs of Omega should concern other aspects to improve the employment of graduates, such as to offer pre-occupation trainings for graduates students. Performing a career is different from learning at school. Communication skills, team work and leadership is【are】highly required, but are not 【cannot be】learnt in regular class. In some career【For some industry】, employers may prefer the one with nice presentation skills to the one【who is】too shy to talk to others when both of them have satisfying grades. It is the duty of school【schools】to help graduate students to be compatible with their career.
【以上一段论点应是“即使废除评价体系，那么就业状况也未必能够好转，因为尚有其它因素”。建议将这个意思表达出来。】

In summary, the given argument is not persuasive to terminate student evaluation. Omega should deep【deeply】analysis【analyze】the reason of lack of employment and helps more students to set out for their career.
总评：
1.语法错误比较多，例如主谓不一致，句式杂糅等；还有词不达意的现象。建议加强训练。
2.每一段的主题句不够到位，没有说清楚你想批驳啥。
3.分析思路不清楚，往往停留于罗列事实，却没有推理。比如你说“可能还有其他的因素，such as。。。”，但是没说清楚这些因素到底怎样导致题目的观点站不住脚。

不揣浅陋，请多包涵。来信请至 yanghaoship@gmail.com

b6ppUID: 2770374

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."


In this argument, the arguer advocates that antibiotics would be an effective part during the treatment of muscle strain since secondary infections may prevent the patients’ healing quickly. In order to justify this conclusion, the arguer points out that according to a study of two groups of patients, less time is needed for patients who use antibiotics. Although this explanation seems promising at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived and would be attacked on numerous grounds, as is shown blew.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that muscle strain will certainly cause a secondary infection which will prevent the patients from healing quickly, but no evidence is offered by the arguer about that. In fact, it is quite possible that muscle strain patients will not suffer from a secondary infection because as is known to us all, many factors (such as proper air temperature, dangerous water source and unhealthy living habits, etc.) are needed to lead to an infection. However, the arguer unfairly assumes that all these factors are available just after the muscle strain that it is enough to cause an infection. Maybe some patients are very careful about their illness so they avoid the infection successfully; but this possibility is not considered by the arguer.

In the second place, there are several problems about the study mentioned in the argument so the conclusion that antibiotic is helpful to muscle strain patients is unreliable. Firstly, the conditions of the two groups of patients are not offered. That is to say, we do not have a specific knowledge about these patients’ ages, heath conditions and some other key details. It is very likely that patients in first group are younger and healthier than the second group and then their capability to recover healthy is certainly easier than the second group. Therefore, the first group’s quick healing should not be an effect of antibiotics. Secondly, as is mentioned in the argument, the doctor of first group specializes in sports medicine while the second group’s doctor is a general physician. Obviously, the first doctor has more experience upon muscle strain--one of the sport medicine problems--then his treatment might be more effective and efficient than the second doctor. The arguer fails to consider the possibility that it is the different methods and experience of doctors that make the different results. Thirdly, details of the sugar pills, which may have a passive effect on treatment muscle strain, are not given. Perhaps the sugar pills’ ingredients make against patients’ healing and then first group can heal more quickly.

In addition, even if antibiotics can treat the infection successfully, the arguer ignores the passive respect of antibiotics so his assertion that all the patients should be advised to take antibiotics is dangerous. It is quite possible some patients is sensitive to antibiotics and their health condition would be worse when treated with antibiotics.

In sum, it is unwise to come to the conclusion that all the patients should be advised to take antibiotics to treat muscle strain quickly. In order to draw a better conclusion, more details are needed. Specifically, the arguer should offer more evidence about information of the (1) two groups of patients and their doctors; (2) the passive effect of sugar pill; (3) whether secondary infections will happen necessarily. Under this circumstance, the argument would be more convincing.
多谢！

guo0693UID: 2540167

占位改83楼~
51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."


In this argument, the arguer advocates that antibiotics would be an effective part during the treatment of muscle strain since secondary infections may prevent the patients’ healing quickly. In order to justify this conclusion, the arguer points out that according to a study of two groups of patients, less time is needed for patients who use antibiotics. Although this explanation seems promising at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived and would be attacked on numerous grounds, as is shown blew.（个人认为，忽略了最重要的一个结论，可以说整个Topic就是为了引出该结论的,那就是Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment.单从开头看来我觉得作者是想攻击study->secondary infection->antibiotics…effective;）

To begin with, the arguer assumes that muscle strain will certainly cause a secondary infection which will prevent the patients from healing quickly, but no evidence is offered by the arguer about that. In fact, it is quite possible that muscle strain patients will not suffer from a secondary infection because as is known to us all, many factors (such as proper air temperature, dangerous water source and unhealthy living habits, etc.) are needed to lead to an infection. However, the arguer unfairly assumes that all these factors are available just after the muscle strain that it is enough to cause an infection. Maybe some patients are very careful about their illness so they avoid the infection successfully;（，） but this possibility is not considered by the arguer.（hasn’t been taken into consideration?）

In the second place, there are several problems about the study mentioned in the argument so the conclusion that antibiotic is helpful to muscle strain patients is unreliable(so的断句第一次我没看懂,so 改成which result in会不会更好点?). Firstly, the conditions of the two groups of patients are not offered. That is to say, we do not have a specific knowledge about these patients’ ages, heath（healthy?） conditions and some other key details(details/key factors 感觉key details有点冗余). It is very likely that patients in first group are younger and healthier than the second group and then their capability to recover healthy is certainly easier than the second group.（capability is easier…?这句有问题） Therefore, the first group’s quick healing should not be an effect of antibiotics. Secondly, as is mentioned in the argument, the doctor of first group specializes in sports medicine while the second group’s doctor is a general physician. Obviously, the first doctor has more experience upon muscle strain--one of the sport medicine problems--then his treatment might be more effective and efficient than the second doctor. （这个论点有点weak，如果我是读者我会反驳为什么外科手术的就不能是个专家？我觉得应该argue两个人的领域不同背景不同已经够了，不要把经验什么的问题考虑进来，有点强词夺理了）The arguer fails to consider the possibility that it is the different methods and experience of doctors that make the different results. Thirdly, details of the sugar pills, which may have a passive effect on treatment muscle strain, are not given.（我来找茬的话，医生有那么的不专业吗？把效果不好的药给病人吃，治疗还是整治呢？） Perhaps the sugar pills’ ingredients make against patients’ healing and then first group can heal more quickly.

In addition, even if antibiotics can treat the infection successfully, the arguer ignores the passive respect of antibiotics so his assertion that all the patients should be advised to take antibiotics is dangerous. It is quite possible some patients is sensitive to antibiotics and their health condition would be worse when treated with antibiotics.（想法很好，需要展开 用例子证明抗生素的消极作用 后面那个假设有点weak：It is quite possible some patients is sensitive to antibiotics and their health condition would be worse when treated with antibiotics特例不具有普遍性，除非有调差显示大多数人对抗生素敏感）

In sum, it is unwise to come to the conclusion that all the patients should be advised to take antibiotics to treat muscle strain quickly. In order to draw a better conclusion, more details are needed. Specifically, the arguer should offer more evidence about information of the (1) background of/detailed condition of two groups of patients and their doctors; (2) the passive effect of sugar pill;没有副作用怎么办？糖丸有副作用吗？ (3) whether secondary infections will happen necessarily. Under this circumstance, the argument would be more convincing.
以上只是我的个人观点 可能会有失偏颇 毕竟我也不是牛人，有错误的地方请原谅呵呵~

guo0693UID: 2540167

多谢楼下的了~第一篇ARG， 还剩8天。。。
TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
WORDS: 531          TIME: 01:50:46          DATE: 2010-8-1 10:25:14

The arguer claim that Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, should be voted in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council, for the reason that Clearview town council's current members are not protecting their environment. To support that reason the arguer list several evidences: the increasing number of factories, increased air pollution and  25 percent more local patients with respiratory illness. Thus he make a prediction that the environmental problems will be solved if Ann Green were elected in order to mislead our residents to make their choice. However, the arguer's logic do suffer several fatal fallacies.

To begin with, the three grounds of arguments lend no support to the claim that members in Frank Braun are not protecting local environment. Putting aside the possibility that some "green" factories without contamination are introduced by the council to accelerate the development of local economy, how can the arguer assure that no actions are taken by the council? As we all know that environment protection is a long run problem which can not be done within a short period of time. When it comes to the air pollution, my doubt remains the same. Besides, the increasing number of patients with respiratory illness have little to do with the pollution, unless the arguer rule out the other possibilities that causes such phenomenon. As far as I know, there are more than one causation that may result in respiratory illness such as smoking, eating duty foods, bacteria infection and so forth. Thus, the 25 percent more patients poorly account for the deterioration of environment which is one premise of that the members overlook environmental problems.

Even if the council takes no actions in protecting local environment, the arguer still fail to convince us that Frank Braun will keep abreast of the council's policy. What if he disagree with those policy that may aggravate environmental problems but have less power to realize his idea?  Even a reactionary gang has some guys with good willings. We can not deny one person just according to where he or she stands. Most times the minorities have no choice but to comply. Thus, the council's policy may not represent for Frank Braun's attitude towards environmental problems.

Last but not the least, how could the arguer affirm that Ann Green could bring us a better solution if Frank Braun couldn't? The membership of Good Earth Coalition does not means that Ann is capable to deal with some important issues out of the realm of environment. To manage a town is not just simple as to lead an organization, let alone we know nothing but a membership of the Good Earth Coalition about Ann. I will remain my right to question Ann Green's qualification unless the arguer provides enough information to support that Ann Green is better than any one else for this position.

In conclusion, to convince us, more detailed information should be provided rather than just list some weak even irrevelant facts with a unconvinced logic. Otherwise, I will doubt the motivation of the arguer's claim: is there any personal interest laying behind this opinion?

guo0693UID: 2540167

哎 小顶一下 别沉了。。。希望有个版主给置顶。。。

zmy1029UID: 2537885

题目：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.

In the argument, by make a comparison between literary classic as the result of a study of reading habits conducted in University of Leeville and mystery novel as the result of another study of the public libraries in Leeville, the argument concludes the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits due to the distinct results of two studies. However, the argument lacks a series of information that can be the possible factors lead to different result in two studies.

To begin with, the author fails to take the time between two studies into account. It is possible that it is a long period of time that has changed the structure of population of Leeville senior people in the first study who prefer to
literary classics rather than mystery novel responded by young people in the later study .Or consider the popular season that literary classics time in the first study and it is the popular with mystery novel during the second study time. Without ruling out these possibilities above, the difference between two studies is reasonable.

Besides, the respondents it also important to the result. The author provides no evidence about the respondents that whether they are a group of people who can representative of citizens of Leeville as a whole. Perhaps in the first study respondents are a group of students in the university whose
major is literaure.Assuming that respondents in the latter study do represente the reading habitat of Leeville citizens. In this case, it is just the researcher’s fault not the misrepresentation of respondents in the first study.

In addition, the author overlooks the distinct between libraries. It is likely that the amount of books especially classic literary of library in university is larger than that in public libraries. In this case, citizens prefer to go to university to borrow books. Or perhaps the price of classic literary is much cheaper than mystery novel so that citizen could afford them.

Finally, the definition of mystery novel and literary classics is unclear. It is entire possible that a book could regard as mystery novel and literary classic at the same time.Odyseey, for instance, which could regard as classic literary due to the story described happened in ancient Greek, while the story is make by author not reality so that it could be mystery novel too.Libaray is replete with such books that between the line of classics literary and mystery novel. Hence, the author could not conclude that respondents misrepresented in the first study.

In sum, the author should make the conclusion before consider the several factors like time, respondents, libraies and definition of books may differentiate the results of two studies.

想用多举例展开的方法写,没怎么用模板,求指教

zmy1029UID: 2537885

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
WORDS: 531          TIME: 01:50:46          DATE: 2010-8-1 10:25:14

The arguer claim that Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, should be voted in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council, for the reason that Clearview town council's current members are not protecting their environment. To support that reason the arguer list several evidences: the increasing number of factories, increased air pollution and  25 percent more local patients with respiratory illness. Thus he makes a prediction that the environmental problems will be solved if Ann Green were elected in order to mislead our residents to make their choice. However, the arguer's logic do suffer several fatal fallacies.

To begin with, the three grounds of arguments lend no support to the claim that members in Frank Braun are not protecting did not protect local environment. Putting aside the possibility that some "green" factories without contamination are introduced by the council to accelerate the development of local economy, how can the arguer assure that no actions are taken by the council? As we all know that environment protection is a long run problem which can not be done within a short period of time. When it comes to the air pollution, my doubt remains the same. Besides, the increasing number of patients with respiratory illness have little to do with the pollution, unless the arguer rule out the other possibilities that causes such phenomenon. As far as I know, there are more than one causation that may result in respiratory illness such as smoking, eating duty foods, bacteria infection and so forth. Thus, the 25 percent more patients poorly account for the deterioration of environment which is one premise of that the members overlook environmental problems. 应该说一下作为政府没有控制污染的论据不成立,点一下主题,这样逻辑比较清晰.

Even if the council takes no actions in protecting local environment, the arguer still fail to convince us that Frank Braun will keep abreast of the council's policy. What if he disagreed with those that policy that may aggravate environmental problems but have less power to realize his idea?  Even a reactionary gang has some guys with good willings. We can not deny one person just according to where he or she stands. Most times the minorities have no choice but to comply. Thus, the council's policy may not represent for Frank Braun's attitude towards environmental problems. 段与段之间要有过渡句照应一下

Last but not the least, how could the arguer affirm that Ann Green could bring us a better solution if but Frank Braun couldn't? The membership of Good Earth Coalition does not means that Ann is capable to deal with some important issues out of the realm of environment. To manage a town is not just simple as to lead an organization, let alone we know nothing but a membership of the Good Earth Coalition about Ann. I will remain my right to question Ann Green's qualification unless the arguer provides enough information to support that Ann Green is better than any one else for this position.

In conclusion, to convince us, more detailed information should be provided rather than just list some weak even irrevelant facts with a unconvinced logic. Otherwise, I will doubt the motivation of the arguer's claim: is there any personal interest laying behind this opinion? 结尾用问句不太好吧, 应该委婉的提出下建议, 建议再考虑下造成污染的其他方面情况,以及考虑能够胜任市长的其他人选,不然没有什么实质性的内容.

你的正文段的写法不错,没怎么用模板,逻辑也挺清晰的
反对政府没有控制污染 – 不一定是K的责任 – A不一定能胜任

但是没有主要过渡句,加上过度句逻辑就更清晰了,虽然说不要用太多模板,但是北美的结构框架还是值得我们学习的,结构清晰,再充分展开论证,离高分就不远了.
还有你要控制时间啊,时间是个大问题,这篇文章不错,但在三十分钟能写出来吗?

以上个人意见,仅供参考,大家互相学习,加油~~

我跟你考试时间差不多, 没几天了, 你issue准备的差不多了吧?

guo0693UID: 2540167

呵呵 谢谢指点~最后那个问句我只是表达一种可能的推论而已，看了些文章说结尾再重复一遍arguer的错误累赘，说ETS要我们的insight opinion，所以提出一种假设的质疑而已。Issue还早呢~从时间上就可以看出来我的阿狗都还是处女座呢。。。Issue更惨 第一篇用了3个多小时。。。还有7天 悲剧啊~ 88# zmy1029

MaydaysjUID: 2805242

题目：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.

In the argument, by make a comparison between literary classic as the result of a study of reading habits conducted in University of Leeville and mystery novel as the result of another study of the public libraries in Leeville,（提取主干后觉得题目并不是比较literary classic& mystery novel的，换个说法概括调查结果吧，另外觉得这半句有点冗长，建议简练些） the argument concludes the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits due to the distinct results of two studies.（欣赏这句总结简练准确） However, the argument lacks a series of information that can be the possible factors（which may缺的话好像语法不太对） lead to different result（S） in two studies.

To begin with, the author fails to take the time between two studies into account. It is possible that it is a long period of time that has changed the structure of population of Leeville senior people in the first study who prefer toliterary classics rather than mystery novel responded by young people in the later study .Or consider the popular season that literary classics time in the first study and it is the popular with mystery novel during the second study time.(这句语法有问题，句子结构不清楚) Without ruling out these possibilities above, the difference between two studies is reasonable.

Besides, the respondents it（拼写注意哦--is） also important to the result. （建议具体概括说明respondents的哪方面）The author provides no evidence about the respondents that whether they are a group of people who can representative of（换成动词） citizens of Leeville as a whole. Perhaps in the first study respondents are a group of students in the university whose major is literaure（拼错了）. Assuming that respondents in the latter study do represente（拼错了） the reading habitat of Leeville citizens.（语法） In this case, it is just the researcher’s fault not the misrepresentation of respondents in the first study.（感觉这段还是说respondents的结构的，是不是可以跟上段第一点整合下，将上段第二点加些别的展开成另一段，重整下段落要点会更有逻辑）

In addition, the author overlooks the distinct between libraries. It is likely that the amount of books especially classic literary of library in university(--literary classic books in university libraries) is larger than that in public libraries. In this case, citizens prefer to go to university to borrow books.（这句想表达什么点，不清楚，另有些university library=public library，举这个不太恰当） Or perhaps the price of classic literary is much cheaper than mystery novel so that citizen could afford them. （这个可以展开写呐，看文学书的可能都去买书而不借书，有收藏价值，悬疑小说一时之快，借而不买。。。。）

Finally, the definition of mystery novel and literary classics is unclear. It is entire possible that a book could（be） regard as mystery novel and literary classic at the same time. Odyseey, (拼写)for instance, which （去掉，不然没谓语了）could regard as classic literary due to the story described happened in ancient Greek, while the story is make（made） by author not reality so that it could be mystery novel too.(逗号前后都不通顺)Libaray is replete with such books that between the line of classics literary and mystery novel. Hence, the author could not conclude that respondents misrepresented in the first study.

In sum, the author should make the conclusion before consider（ing） the several factors like time, respondents, libraies and definition of books may differentiate the results of two studies.（时序说反了）

小建议：
1.希望多注意下语法，意思才能表达的更清楚
2.段落要点组合要考虑下逻辑联系，抓住重要的攻击点药深入展开说明
3.先放到word里检查下拼写

PS：再接再厉！加油！！


87# zmy1029