1010G零散版友作文互改帖（Argument）

雨馨UID: 2765070

抱走#104

抱歉昨天不能修改，现在补上：

TOPIC: ARGUMENT16 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia.

"Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling."

[整体格式，段首不必缩进，段间空一行]

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Impecunia should establish a state lottery like the one in Luria, which supplements tax revenues for education and health. To support the claim, the arguer points out Lucria's improvements on education and health, such as the spending of money on per pupil and health program that treats lots of people. In addition, he indicates the average money citizens of Impecunia spend per year cited from a survey. [要指出是用在赌博上的啊，这个漏掉文意就不对了] At the first glance, the conclusion seems to be somewhat convincing, however, further reflection tells me that the argument suffers from some fallacies.
[开头段稍显冗长，大多只是相当于复述，没有必要。太过模板化了。建议要么是更逻辑地把三句整合起来，要凸显它的几个最主要的错误，这个你不说是不行的，比如要暗示说arguer think Impecunia should … because Lucira … with hasty 用like没有用because这样来能够暗示作者的逻辑链。如果做不到这一点，还不如直陈错误。就如同某范文那样：我认为这东西没道理。然后把三个或几个攻击点列一下：因为…;…;….都比你现在的这种清楚]

First and foremost, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. [这句效率很高] The arguer simply assumes that Lucria' success can be copied by Impecunia, which is unwarranted for he does not provide any evidence to prove that the economic situation and other factors such as the population and personal income as well as the health program [这四个因素，可以不用那么多连词的……当然你的用法还算顺畅] between Lucria and Impecunia are similar. If Impecunia has more pupils than those in Lucria, it is likely to happen that the average amount of money spent on pupils from Impecunia will be cut [cut用得不对啊，cut是缩减，为什么人多反而要缩减呢？没有道理也和文章无关，应该说lower或者naturally lower than that in Lucria]. Likewise, we are not informed whether the health programs of the two states have the same quality though the one in Lucria treats far more people.
[抓到点子了，但攻击不够啊，more pupil放在这里是证明什么的？比如可以说明是因为I的小学生比L多得多，并且已经花了非常多的钱在教育上，L通过搞彩票弄来的钱，放在I，也就相当于个零头，还是不能有本质的提升。这一点本身不够有说服力，而下一句直接偷懒likewise了，也要举具体的例子啊，比如治的人少不是钱的问题，比如人口本来就不一样多，ETS很看重例子的。]

Another weakness worth pointing out [这句稍显别扭] is that the survey conducted in the capital city is not representative to reflect the general attitude of the citizens about lottery. Mostly, citizens from capital city, who usually earn more money than those from rural places and thus lead better lives, tend to spend more money on amusement. Therefore, we have good reasons to doubt if the sample is large enough and representative as a whole. Besides, lottery is just a kind of gambling and we can not [cannot] ensure all the money for gambling is totally used for lottery.
[这个Besides是属于下段的内容吧，你这段不是在说城市以偏盖全的问题么？放到下段然后再让步比较好]

Last but not least, even if the citizens spend an average of $50 per person per year on lottery, which is of course an unpersuasive assumption [不必要而且会造成歧义：到底是作者unpersuasive还是你自己unpersuasive], it does not follow that they will spend their money on this specific lottery. Common sense tells us that most people purchase lottery just for the reason of regaining more money, they care only about the bonus and the rates instead of where the extra money will be used. Without further and adequate evidence, we cannot make a conclusion that the lottery would doubtless be successful.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate the exact effects that the lottery bring to Lucria along with the detailed and credible evidence and information about the reason why Impecunia would gain the similar success. In addition, the arguer must provide the procedure on how to begin a state lottery and the way to satisfy the citizens to buy the lottery.

有一个比较新颖的论点说买彩票不是看种类而是看获奖率，但是这和文章并不太相关，因为文章根本没提到手段问题，但还是能够体现思维的缜密。
同时，漏了一个很明显的攻击点：每个小孩投入多=教育好？治疗的人多=医疗好？造成只有第一段在论述比较重要的问题，而后两段都在绕着比较次要的最后一句打转，如果能加个第二段着力论述这个问题，整篇应该会出彩很多。

还有语言方面，感觉看了词汇和用语已经够多，但是用在论证、举例上的却很少，通篇都是说理，并且用了很多不必要的冗长的表达。通篇的可能性只有一个小学生人数不同。用常识反驳只有两处：城里有钱人多和人买彩票是为了赢。这个方面是非常不足的，感觉老美看重的不是你说了啥，而是每一句背后的凭什么。比如凭什么医疗和教育就能similar呢？你就要跟他举例子了吧！

一般WORD不划小绿线我看着也顺畅的话，我不太能够细改语法错误，你的句子模板感觉比较多，很长很绕，我没有把握说你不对。
所以推荐一个在线语法查错的，比WORD靠谱一点：
http://www.whitesmoke.com/free-online-checker
有不确定的句子可以自己仔细再查过。

个人意见，希望对你有帮助

我的（又遇到发帖限制）：

TOPIC: ARGUMENT195 - The following is a letter from an editor at Liber Publishing Company to the company's president.

"In recent years, Liber has unfortunately moved away from its original mission: to publish the works of regional small-town authors instead of those of big-city authors. Just last year, 90 percent of the novels we published were written by authors who maintain a residence in a big city. Although this change must have been intended to increase profits, it has obviously backfired, because Liber is now in serious financial trouble. The only way to address this problem is to return to our original mission. If we return to publishing only the works of regional small-town authors, our financial troubles will soon be resolved."
WORDS: 448          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-8-5 14:39:30

The argument indicates the financial trouble of Liber is in result to the changing of its original mission and only by returning to its original mission can it resolve the problem. The logical chain of which is shown to be flawed after a careful analysis.

In the first place, the statement "Liber has moved away from its original mission" is not well-grounded according to the argument. The letter points out that 90 percent of the novels Liber published were written by authors who maintain a residence in a big city. However, it fails to tell the reader what percentage do novels share in Liber's business. For instance, if Liber prints much more magazines than novels and all of the magazines are from regional small-town authors, it is too justify to say Liber has changed its original mission. In addition, authors who maintain a residence in a big city may not be big-city authors. The type of the authors may depend on his or her life experience and childhood memories. The argument could be largely improved if it attaches a detailed comparison between the Liber's business nowadays and years ago.

Moreover, the argument provides little evidence to prove that there is a causal relationship between the publishing changes and the serious financial trouble. Perhaps the financial trouble occurred before last year, which has nothing to do with the changing policy, and Liber was trying to solve it by making changes. That is entirely possible that if Liber did not move away from its original mission, the problem would be worse. In addition to this, it is also possible that the percentage of publications is just a red herring to the financial trouble. The management and the financial policy of Liber might be the real cause of the problem. More information about the financial trouble is needed to sufficiently prove that it is the changing in publishing the works that causes Liber's financial problem.

Even if Liber do move its mission and it does caused the financial problem, it does not necessarily indicates that to switch to the original mission is the only effective way to solve the problem. To switch a company's mission takes time and acquires money and resources. For Liber, it might be difficult at the time. There might be some other ways as selling part of their business, changing the managers and directors of the company, introducing new policies to stimulate the employees' passion and so on. Without crossing out these possible solutions, the argument is not persuasive enough.

To sum up, although the argument provides a logical line to prove that Liber should return to its original mission, it is not reasonable enough due to a large lack of supporting materials.

韵9090UID: 2874129

106#加油改俺的argument啊~~:lol

怒放的生命UID: 2754391

占位改106#
我的：
45.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 population 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 population is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

The author developed the argument through a succession of claims and reasoning. However, grounding on three disputed assumptions as well as failing to account more possible explanations, the author eventually fails to convey an ordered process of accumulation and rationalization.

A threshold problem involves incredible reports from local hunters, alleging the reduction of arctic deer, on which the argument depends. However, in all likelihood such reports are made on the condition that they haven't caught deer for a period of time, which might be related to other alterations, rather than population decreasing. Such variations may include the point that local deer began to realize how to elude hunters after years of struggle and confrontation. Again, the time when hunters come out and regions where hunters seek potential preys may largely differ from those of local deer. Various habits between hunters and deer are attributable to their missing.

Also fallible is the assumption that a coincidence of global warming trends and deer population reduction amounts to a causal relationship, even accepting the accuracy of the reports. It means that global warming trends do not necessarily result in death and decline. Perhaps that slightly increased temperature has indeed contributed to ice melting, to a certain extent, of which the degree isn't severe enough to sabotage the integrity of the whole ice. Or perhaps that habits and characteristics of arctic deer have indeed been more or less influenced by climate changing, while it doesn't mean to threaten their survival or even to decimate their population. It might also be the case that warmer climate acts as catalyst for plants growing, in which case arctic deer may not need to migrate for food any more. Without further information about the level of change and the following effect on deer, we can hardly reach a correlative, let alone causal conclusion.

To say the least, grounding on the cause-and-effect relationship above, one is more likely skeptical about the process by which global warming trends come into play. Why can't arctic deer exist due to climate change? Does the reduction merely bear on reasons related to their customary migration patterns? As far as the information at present, one would suppose other possible expositions, including that local deer encounter the difficulty to adapt to the warmer weather and higher temperature throughout the year which render some feeble and depressed ones die, or that possible spontaneous mutation of plants, effect of environmental change, may be the final killer since the original plants no longer satisfy their physiological need.

Besides, even acknowledging the exactness of all argued before, the conclusion remains dubious. Could the reasoning assume full responsibility for decreasing of deer? Aren't there any alternative? Obviously, there is often more than one possibility. It is entirely possible that excess hunting is committed to the result, or that local deer have ate up accessible plants in the area. In addition, one cannot eliminate the potentiality of exotic species' aggression, which may somehow cripple deer's power to live.

The paragraph given is established on the awareness of protecting wild life, in order to draw much attention to arctic deer's survival and deterioration of environment. However, it could be further strengthened by excluding all possibility of doubt, and more detailed investigation and scientific research should be caught on before publication.

谢谢

怒放的生命UID: 2754391

TOPIC: ARGUMENT195 - The following is a letter from an editor at Liber Publishing Company to the company's president.

"In recent years, Liber has unfortunately moved away from its original mission: to publish the works of regional small-town authors instead of those of big-city authors. Just last year, 90 percent of the novels we published were written by authors who maintain a residence in a big city. Although this change must have been intended to increase profits, it has obviously backfired, because Liber is now in serious financial trouble. The only way to address this problem is to return to our original mission. If we return to publishing only the works of regional small-town authors, our financial troubles will soon be resolved."


紫色是个人觉得有错误的地方
蓝色是个人认为可以改进的
灰色是我觉得可以去掉或者去掉后改成后面彩色字的地方
绿色是个人喜欢的或感觉创新的地方
内容问题

The argument indicates that
(此处that应是不可省略的)
the financial trouble of Liber is in result to
(你表达的应该是由于的意思吧，没查到有这个短语) results from the changing of its original mission and only by returning to its original mission can it resolve the problem the problem be resolved
(因为it在这里感觉指代不够明确). The logical chain of which is shown to be flawed after a careful analysis.

In the first place, the statement "Liber has moved away from its original mission" （如果的确可以加引号代替that从句的话，值得我借鉴）is not well-grounded according to the argument. The letter points out that 90 percent of the novels Liber published were written by authors who maintain a residence in a big city. However, it fails to tell the reader what percentage do novels share in Liber's business. For instance,（举例这个含义不太合适吧）Suppose that
if Liber prints much more magazines, in which all of the articles than novels and all of the magazines are from regional small-town authors (不知道这样改合不合你意，至少我觉得表述清楚些，杂志应该是收录作家的作品)， it is too justify defective/deficient/unsound/incomplete to say Liber has changed its original mission (这句重复了，有点罗嗦). In addition, authors who maintain a residence in a big city may not be big-city authors（读起来比较有趣）. The type（identities）
of the authors may depend on his or her life experience and childhood memories. The argument could be largely improved if it attaches a detailed comparison between the Liber's business nowadays and years ago.（怎么觉得这句话和整段没有关系？我能明白你的意思，但感觉不是很顺畅）

Moreover, the argument provides little evidence to prove that there is a causal relationship between the publishing changes and the serious financial trouble. Perhaps the financial trouble occurred before last year（为什么before last year就无关呢？题中只说近些年来）, which has nothing to do with the changing policy, and Liber was trying to solve it by making such changes. That It is entirely possible that if Liber did not move away from its original mission, the problem would be worse. In addition to this, it is also possible that the percentage of publications is just a red herring to the financial trouble. The management and the financial policy of Liber might be the real cause of the problem. More information about the financial trouble is needed to sufficiently prove that it is the changing in publishing the works that causes Liber's financial problem.

Even if Liber do move its mission and it，which does caused cause
the financial problem, it does not necessarily indicates that to switch to the original mission is the only effective way to solve the problem（这句好多to啊，感觉罗嗦，switch词义也不合适，可以用transform啊、convert啊，何况returning to也蛮好的）. To switch a company's mission takes time and acquires money and resources. For Liber, it might be difficult at the time. There might be some other ways as selling part（这个不知道什么意思）
of their business, including/such as (虽然这两个词很普通，但我认为类似的连接词在这里必不可少) changing the managers and directors of the company, introducing new policies to stimulate the employees' passion and so on. Without crossing out（cross out是撤销、划掉的意思，不知用来表示“排除”是否合适） these possible solutions, the argument is not persuasive enough.

To sum up, although the argument provides a logical line to prove that Liber should return to its original mission, it is not reasonable enough due to a large lack of（这个用法感觉怪怪的）supporting materials.（这种简洁的总结我比较喜欢）

整体感觉思路还是比较开阔的，提出的alternatives比较多，攻击点找的也蛮准。
思路上可以再把驳论分析的透彻些，而不是简单罗列possible explanations，这个ETS范文体现的很明显。另外感觉作者刻意用了替换词，提醒作者注意替换词的准确性，可能中文都是一个意思，但英文会有细微差别哦，我觉得有时候用的简单总比不恰当要好。有些生动的替换是带有修辞意味的，不过至少对于我目前水平来讲，还是不能很好的分辨的。语言再简洁一些，有时需要借助复合句达到表达的目的。这个很好提高的，用看个两三篇文章就无师自通了。
给你的建议希望对你有帮助，加油！
106# 雨馨

韵9090UID: 2874129

为什么我的作文还没有改完呢~~什么叫发帖限制啊？要是改完了发不上来发我邮箱里面吧512317492  你的都被人改完了一定要帮改我的啊！~~ 106# 雨馨

怒放的生命UID: 2754391

这个帖子麻烦各位版主关照一下啊

tracywlzUID: 2522388

这个帖子麻烦各位版主关照一下啊
怒放的生命 发表于 2010-8-9 17:32

来了来了，你的意思是？

怒放的生命UID: 2754391

就是感觉有点冷清  ~嘿嘿
另外，希望有人继续未完成的事业啊  我改好了  自己的习作也贴上来了  先谢谢后面的朋友~
112# tracywlz

怒放的生命UID: 2754391

没人么？？？

雨馨UID: 2765070

那么我来领走好了^^

45.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 population 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 population is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

The author developed the argument through a succession of claims and reasoning. However, grounding on three disputed assumptions as well as failing to account more possible explanations, the author eventually fails to convey an ordered process of accumulation and rationalization.

A threshold problem involves incredible reports from local hunters, alleging the reduction of arctic deer, on which the argument depends. However, in all likelihood such reports are made on the condition that they haven't caught deer for a period of time, which might be related to other alterations, rather than population decreasing. Such variations may include the point that local deer began to realize how to elude hunters after years of struggle and confrontation. Again, the time when hunters come out and regions where hunters seek potential preys may largely differ from those of local deer. Various habits between hunters and deer are attributable to their missing.

Also fallible is the assumption that a coincidence of global warming trends and deer population reduction amounts to a causal relationship, even accepting the accuracy of the reports. It means that global warming trends do not necessarily result in death and decline. [这句稍显多余和笨拙，有点打破之前洗练的语言的感觉，或者可以改为, which means…] Perhaps that slightly increased temperature has indeed contributed to ice melting, to a certain extent, of which the degree isn't severe enough to sabotage the integrity of the whole ice. Or perhaps that habits and characteristics of arctic deer have indeed been more or less influenced by climate changing, while it doesn't mean to threaten their survival or even to decimate their population. It might also be the case that warmer climate acts as catalyst for plants growing, in which case arctic deer may not need to migrate for food any more. Without further information about the level of change and the following effect on deer, we can hardly reach a correlative, let alone [a] causal conclusion.

To say the least, grounding on the cause-and-effect relationship above, one is more likely skeptical about the process by which global warming trends come into play. Why can't arctic deer exist due to climate change? [这个反问句表意不是很明确，温度变化是包含在天气变化内的，不能迁移也是因为天气变化啊，这里应该是天气变化导致的其他因素才对。这个反问句会整个让人误解你这一段的意思，以为你要写除了全球变暖之外的理由，但其实你还是写了变暖的结果] Does the reduction merely bear on reasons related to their customary migration patterns? As far as [这个用法不太对，这个后面好像应该跟从句，这里用For就可以了] the information at present, one would suppose other possible expositions, including that local deer encounter the difficulty to adapt to the warmer weather and higher temperature throughout the year which render some feeble and depressed ones die, or that possible spontaneous mutation of plants, effect of environmental change, may be the final killer since the original plants no longer satisfy their physiological need.

Besides, even acknowledging the exactness of all argued before, the conclusion remains dubious. Could the reasoning assume full responsibility for decreasing of deer? Aren't there any alternative? Obviously, there is often more than one possibility. It is entirely possible that excess hunting is committed to the result, or that local deer have ate up accessible plants in the area. In addition, one cannot eliminate the potentiality of exotic species' aggression, which may somehow cripple deer's power to live.

The paragraph given is established on the awareness of protecting wild life, in order to draw much attention to arctic deer's survival and deterioration of environment. However, it could be further strengthened by excluding all possibility of doubt, and [, and应该不对，直接换成while好了] more detailed investigation and scientific research should be caught on before publication.

努努的语言真是让人赞叹呢，用词和句法都非常有水平，我吃不准的一般都维持原议，只能改出几个非常细小的错误

逻辑是用了层层让步，但这个文章里，我觉得每段让步是没有很大必要的。比如第二段，其实无论调查准确或不准确，天气变化和鹿灭绝都其实没啥关系。尤其是你用Also fallible，其实已经表达了承上启下的意思。同样，最后一段的让步，也不用刻意去说你是在承认上述的前提下。直接说另外，作者也忽略了其他因素，不是更利于你的表达么？你放让步在这里，虽然能够更好地连接，但是你的他因就显得比较牵强了——因为你已经承认了通篇都是有道理的……何苦这么为难自己呢？只有第三段，在第二段说气温不一定跟灭绝有关系的前提下，说即使有关系也不一定是碍着路了，是很适合用让步。如果不让步也是可以一一指出问题的话，为让步而让步显得有些多余，并且影响了你段首主题句的表达，因为要表达让步总是要更加复杂一点。总之，还是要因“地”制宜地使用结构，只要逻辑是顺畅的，没有必要把自己框在一个固定模式里。

其他方面真是颇无可指摘的好文~

雨馨UID: 2765070

嗯，我的习作。

这篇是写了ScoreItNow!的题目[ETS官方的erater评分的付费服务]，写的时间大大超出规定时间并且用WORD查了语法错误，最后是5分，贴上来。
一来大家都有一个依据，二来希望楼下看看还有什么应该改进的地方。
拜谢啦~

题目：

University of Claria

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields. For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries. Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.

文章：

The argument successfully illustrates the University of Claria as a great university of a high reputation. However, it is still too hasty for the author to say that anyone seeking a quality education should choose the University of Claria.

The University of Claria have certain outstanding faculty members who do extensive research and have great publishing record but not all of them are the best professors in their field. There might be some faculty members in other universities not so good as the top professors in the University of Claria but better than many other ordinary faculty members in it. If a student has the opportunity to follow those scholars, he or she should still consider entering another university. Similarly, there might be perfect professors in English department and physics department but what about other departments? It is hard for any university to be the best in all the academic fields. It is entirely possible that the engineering department of Claria is relatively weaker than the engineering department of some other university. For that instance, should students who want to major in engineering still choose the University of Claria for its reputation in English and physics field? As average performance cannot be mistaken as the performance of every single faculty member, it is too justify to say all the professors in the University of Claria is better than all the other professors and narrow the choices of those who want to seek better education.

Even if all the faulty members are great in doing research jobs and writing academic papers in the University of Claria, are they good at teaching and guiding the students? The two young candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics could be an isolated example because great scientific research is rarely taught and determined by the professors. Beside the Nobel Prize example, there is little information about the faculty's education skills in the passage. Perhaps the scholars in the University of Claria can win such a good reputation because they devote more energy into personal achievements rather than education compared to instructors in other universities; perhaps they focus on only the talented students who have the potential ability to achieve great success and ignore other students. The benefits of studying at the University of Claria might not be as secured as the argument stated.

When move on to the competitiveness in the job market, the author's conclusion is not well-grounded as well. 75 percent is not so high a record for the percentage of the graduates to find employments so other university could have a higher percentage than Claria. If someone regard a quality education as an education that can sufficiently help him or her to get a job, he or she might not choose the University or Claria. Moreover, what jobs do the students from the University of Claria get? Do Claria graduates become workers, cleaners, teachers, salesmen, officers, managers, directors or presidents? The argument would be more persuasive if it provides not only the percentage of those have and have not get employed but also the statistic data of what kind of job they have found.

To sum up, one can tell from the argument that the University of Claria is a worth-entering school but cannot be assured that it should be the obvious choice for everyone seeking quality education. After all, each university has its own pros and cons while each students may define quality education in different ways so perhaps there would never be a university suitable for everyone.

等待终点UID: 2875375

:p:p:p:p

tracyrongyiUID: 2842378

还有没有人改啊 aw a PART 大家互相改啊  https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1141706-1-1.html

tiantianjiaoUID: 2888900

改116楼A

tiantianjiaoUID: 2888900

The argument successfully illustrates the University of Claria as a great university of a high reputation. However, it is still too hasty for the author to say that anyone seeking a quality education should choose the University of Claria.（这里用it比较好）

The University of Claria have （has）certain outstanding faculty members who do extensive research and have great publishing record but not all of them are the best professors in their fields. There might be some faculty members in other universities not so good as the top professors in the University of Claria but better than many other ordinary faculty members in it. If a student has the opportunity to follow those scholars, he or she should still consider entering another university. Similarly, there might be perfect professors in English department and physics department but what about other departments? It is hard for any university to be the best in all the academic fields. It is entirely possible that the engineering department of Claria is relatively weaker than the engineering department(that 尽量不要与前面重复) of some other universities. For that instance, should students who want to major in engineering still choose the University of Claria for its reputation in English and physics fields? As average performance cannot be mistaken as the performance of every single faculty member, it is too justify(个人认为此处用insufficient) to say all the professors in the University of Claria is(are) better than all the other professors and narrow the choices of those who want to seek better education.

Even if all the faulty members are great in doing research jobs and writing academic papers in the University of Claria, are they good at teaching and guiding the students? The two young candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics could be an isolated example because great scientific research is rarely taught and determined by the professors. Beside the Nobel Prize example, there is little information about the faculty's education skills in the passage. Perhaps the scholars in the University of Claria can win such a good reputation because they devote(just due to their devoting) more energy into personal achievements rather than education compared to instructors in other universities; perhaps they focus on only the talented students who have the potential ability to achieve great success and ignore other students. The benefits of studying at the University of Claria might not be as secured as the argument stated.

When move(moving) on to the competitiveness in the job market, the author's conclusion is not well-grounded as well. 75 percent is not so high a record for the percentage of the graduates to find employments so(thus) other university could have a higher percentage than Claria. If someone regards a quality education as an education that can sufficiently help him or her to get a job, he or she might not choose the University or Claria. Moreover, what jobs do the students from the University of Claria get? Do Claria graduates become workers, cleaners, teachers, salesmen, officers, managers, directors or presidents? The argument would be more persuasive if it provides not only the percentage of those have and(or) have not get employed but also the statistic data of what kind of job they have found.

To sum up, one can tell from the argument that the University of Claria is a worth-entering school but cannot be assured that it should be the obvious choice for everyone seeking quality education. After all, each university has its own pros and cons while each students may define quality education in different ways so perhaps there would never be a university suitable for everyone.
文章的整体文采很好，只是需要注意个别用词的考究以及粗心错误。个人认为如果适当地用一些特殊词汇，可以使说理更有力
主题第一段中的If a student has the opportunity to follow those scholars, he or she should still consider entering another university. 逻辑不清晰，在说到department和professor的局限性时有点重复
主题第三段攻击比例还可以更深入些，追问比例的来源，比例中的分子分母等，由此可以弥补第一段重复的损失