求评分~~互相拍

jessica.njuUID: 2740895

八月就要考AW了，练习了一些ISSUE和argument，也看了不少范文，但一直不知自己的水平究竟能得几分，下面是我昨天刚写的两篇文章，希望各位大虾帮我评下分，让我心里有个底，谢谢~~若考完后感觉良好回拍感谢各位  


ISSUE170：

The speaker claims that it is not hte achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people that indicate the greatness of a nation. In my perspective, the welfare shows the living standard of its people, so it is really an indicator of a great nation. However, we can not ignore the importance of artists, scientists and so on, as their achievements are the guarantee of welfare, so they can also show the greatness of a nation.

The achievements of rulers, artists, and scientists are wealth of a nation, these can indicate a great nation. Look back into history, we can figure out that when a society enjoy prosperoty in art, science, it is likely that the society is flourish, its people also enjoy a high level of welfare. The development of art and science can motivate the revolution of a nation and improve the knowledge of its people. Italy in renaissance is a good example i this point. At that time, Italy was the center of art in europe, there were a large sum of artists there, created numerous art works, such as the three giants: Lenardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael, their works like Mona Lisa, David, The last supper are still of great value even now days. When Italy enjoyed such prosperity of art, there is no doubt that it is a great nation, someone even say it is the empire at that time. The development of art bring so many talented artists there, with advanced minds, all these contributes to the greatness of Italy. The same is to rulers and scientists as to artists, as parts of a society, all them are good indicators of a great nation.

On the other hand, we should realize that people are the main part of a nation, the welfare level of them is an indicator shows the development of a nation. Without the guarantee of the general welfare of all its people, a nation can hardly be called a great country. For instance, The former Souviet Union, which paid too much attention to the development of heavy industry while seldom considered the real welfare of its people. At the last century, The former Souviet Union almost focused all its strength on the heavy industry's development. Too much fund were given to this area, however, the ruler nearly cared nothing about its people's lives, it failed to realize that even it became the NO.1 in heavy industry globally, if do not improve the general welfare of its people, it can never be a great nation, on the contrary, it runs a risk of failure. Facts can show this dicepline, the broken of The former Souviet Union shocked the world, but think carefully, you can find it is a thing that will undoubtedly happen, the general welfare forms the basis of a great nation.

Further more, the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists are closely related to the general welfare of all its people, they promote the other one, so a nation should get a bapance and develop the two at the same time. History has proved that when a naiton enjoys flourish in art and science, the welfare of its people is also very high. America serves as a good example in this aspect. At the time since the second industry revolution took place in America, it made huge progress in the achievements of rulers, scientists as well as artists such as literary. It became a new develop and manufacture center of the world. At the same time, we could realize that  the general welfare of American also saw a high jump. Its people could enjoy a much higher level of live because of the achievements. All these lead America be a great nation. even a superpower in the world.

To sum up, the achievements of government, art, science cam improve the level of its people's welfare, on the other hand, when people enjoy high level of welfare, it can give support to the development of art, science and so on. Fron this, we can figure out that these two have a highly closed relationship and can motivate the other one, so it will be wise for a nation to develop them wholly with good plan.


argu:209

Such a recommendation is drawn by the author, in the argument, as that the Fancy Toy Company(FTC) should fire its current president Pat Salvo and employ Rosa Winnings, who is the president of Starlight Jewelry(SJ) now. To validate the recommendation, the author points out that FTC's profits fallen considerably in the last quarters, while the profits of SJ increased a lot over the past several decades. However, the foregoing supporting evidence is not as credible as it seems after close scrutiny.

First, the author unfairly assume that it is because Pat's ability that cause the decline of FTC's profits. The author provide no evidence that the decline of profits has lasted for a long time, it is possible that the last three quarters is an aberration and the trend won't continue, after all, three quarters is not a relatively long time for business. Besides, many other factors rather then Pat's leadership can lead to the decreasing of profits. Such as through the last three quarters, there is a terrible economic depression, or FTC may have just made a big investment which return can be shown only after several years. As the author fails to rule out the other explanations for the decline of profits for FTC, I can not accept his recommendation.

Second, the argument rests on the unreasonable assumption that Rosa is fit for FTC. The mere fact that Rosa did a good job in SJ does not necessarily indicate that he will also fit the work in FTC. It is possible that the two companies are selling different products, whose price strategy, marketing can be totally different. In addition, we can not ignore the possibility that it is the efforts of other employees that contribute to the success of SJ. As the author has not taken all these above into account, it is too hasty for his to draw the conclusion that Rosa will do a good job in FTC.

Third, the author's assumption that FTC can soon enjoy an increase in profits if they hire Rosa is also open to doubt. The author's conclusion is based on the assumption that Rosa is willing to come to FTC, while there is no evidence indicate that in the argument. So if Rosa does not want to go to FTC, the expaction of his coming with the increase of profits makes nothing. Additionally, common sence tells us profits are affected by many aspects, as Rosa is not familiar with the business of FTC, no one can guarantee that he is able to design the suitable strategy for the develoment of FTC and it will definitely increase its profits. Since the author provides no evidence to substantiate the assumptions, his recommendation is too groudless to be accepted.

To sum up, the author lacks both detailed evidence as well as precise reasoning to make a convincing argument. To strengthen the reommendation, the author must provide evidence shows that the leadership of Pat is the only reason lead to the profits decline of FTC, and Rosa is the best candidate for the president. To better evaluate the argument, I also need to know that Rosa is willing to come to FTC and he is capable of taking effective measures to increase the profits.

这两篇都是直接在AWP上写的，没有经过Word纠错，我也发现了不少拼写错误，望大家猛拍哈~~