求Argument 的Partner

DonDonDonUID: 2779126

RT，最近往返于太傻和寄托两大论坛，对于argument的一些认识也在发生转变，也不再单纯的找出3-4个错误在那里乱批一通。所以决心抛开模板，从逻辑链出发，一点一点的对argument进行复习。
因为个人的逻辑性相对较差，所以argument复习起来甚至有些困难，很多题目的逻辑链都很难理清。由于考试时间一点点的临近，而argument的复习有没有什么起色，所以才发帖寻找复习argument的partner。
对于partner的要求：
1，逻辑思维比较好，逻辑清晰（对argument有一定的认识及经验者优先）；
2，有空的同学；
3，不涉及issue的讨论。
如果有意向，就加Q：562860963，注明 argument即可~~
希望大家多多帮助
谢谢~~:)

DonDonDonUID: 2779126

。。悲剧了 大家都对argument很秒杀么。。。:dizzy:

DonDonDonUID: 2779126

。。还是没有人回复。。

shadow1987UID: 2605840

这么说很空泛，你可以贴篇你的文章，或者举个阿狗题，列一下你的思路，然后大家讨论。
我的阿狗186，https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1130342-1-1.html，愿意可以进来说下思路。

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

I agree with LS
the best way to practice is writing by yourself and ask others about suggestion..it is not about discussion how to become logical with others, but think for yourself.
Read 6 point sample assay 10 times, and think about how, why and what did that test taker wrote and why ETS think it was good. That will help you much more than superficial discussion. There is on right or wrong answers for AW, only what is best strategy for you and what is the best assay based on your own way of thinking. This can only be formed by yourself.

but if you want, you can form a group, and pick up one topic to write..then write without referring to any other assays.
Then you guys can look at each other's assay and see for yourself which one is better...in this process, you're capable of forming your own style of writing..

or if you want to compare with me, here is the topic I practiced the other day.

TOPIC: ARGUMENT149 - The following is a memorandum from the director of personnel to the president of Get-Away Airlines.

"Since our mechanics are responsible for inspecting and maintaining our aircraft, Get-Away Airlines should pay to send them to the Quality-Care Seminar, a two-week seminar on proper maintenance procedures. I recommend this seminar because it is likely to be a wise investment, given that the automobile racing industry recently reported that the performance of its maintenance crews improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. These maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do our mechanics, including refueling and repairing engines. The money we spend on sending our staff to the seminar will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline."

it is an easy topic in general, write your own (meaning don't use other resources, write the way you think it should be) , and post it.. I will provide mine for your reference.

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

if you really have time...read this book

being logic: A guide to good think

[简单的逻辑学].[Being.Logical.-.A.Guide.To.Good.Thinking].pdf (2.38 MB, 下载次数: 18)

2010-7-30 04:15:56 上传

下载次数: 18

shadow1987UID: 2605840

5# lingli_xiaoai

我先试列一下这篇argument的逻辑思路，等等再发文章上来：

evidence1: The report from the automobile racing industry.

evidence2: The similarities of mechanics in two industries.

assumption: It is totally worth it to spend the money on sending our staff to the seminar, because this decision will improve their maintenance and satisfy the customers, and eventually increase the airline's profits.

recommendation: We should pay to send them to the seminar.

Logic: evidence1 and 2 => assumption => recommendation

由于没看出这篇argument把重点放在这个逻辑过程的哪里，或者是哪个推导环节的逻辑错误特别的明显，所以我应该还是从evidence1开始，然后2然后assumption然后conclusion。

第一段把逻辑整理一下，同时也是一个paraphrasing；

第二段evidence1，perhaps赛车机修师原来水平太差，perhaps这个研讨会的很多专家是研究赛车的，perhaps这是industry的propaganda material，不真实；

第三段evidence2，function一样并不代表具体工作一样，perhaps飞机和赛车差很多（明显不用perhaps了，但是ETS教导我们不需要有common sense，我就装傻），perhaps 我们的crews水平已经相当牛了，可以去研讨会教别人去了；

第四段assumption，perhaps我们的飞机质量非常好，故障率非常低，即便mechanics水平高客户也不一定能发现得了，perhaps我们的crew异常庞大，比汽修那边的人多得多，需要的经费就多，perhaps我们的客户少，比汽车那边的少得多，利润提升空间就少，in short，whether it is worth or not is still a question。

第五段：recommendation needs more convincing evidences。

哎，写完提纲回头看看觉得好平庸，好一般，好常规，没有shining ideas，除了好操作基本没任何好处= =！

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

5# lingli_xiaoai

我先试列一下这篇argument的逻辑思路，等等再发文章上来：

evidence1: The report from the automobile racing industry.

evidence2: The similarities of mechanics in two industries. ...
shadow1987 发表于 2010-7-30 12:01

Based on your outline..you already get 5 point....
let me know when you finish writing.. and I can post mine..so we can discuss what is the best way to write this topic.
I think you're good at logic analysis as well..so we can learn from each other.

in terms of shining points...I think since this one is pretty easy and straight forward, so evident1-2-conclusion is logical.
If you want to make your argument special, just make each of your argument/alternative explanation strong.

DonDonDonUID: 2779126

恩  practice makes perfect。感谢你们哈~
关于那道题目：
A1：QC项目适合our mechanics；
A2：report证明QC对于automobile racing industry有效；
A1+A2——conclusion，即参加QC seminar can improve maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline。
第一段整理逻辑链；基于A1和A2，错误的推出了结论
第二段说明report未必能证明seminar对automobile racing 有效。可能这个项目是industry办的，他们自己当然说自己的项目好；再或者seminar的参加者已经很厉害了，参加seminar对他们没有什么帮助；
第三段说明即使第二段成立，seminar未必合适我们的mechanics，虽然我们的和automobile有相似，但是差异还是有的，不能照搬，automobile racing的去了，说明更适合他们。同时seminar可能是很前沿的，很学术，未必能给我们的mechanics带来一定的技术经验，无法满足日常工作的需要；
第四段说即使seminar对我们好，也未必能带来profit，因为profit要考虑收入和支出，可能这个seminar太贵了，不值得花那么多钱学；再者，maintain的技术高了，也未必more customers，可能公司服务太差，人们还是不想来。

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

You can learn form 1987's outline on this topic...his outline is pretty good..try to think about what did you miss. You guys basically have similar attacking sequence and points.
Is there anything else you can get from the topic.Then you can write whole argument to practice, if you can express everything mentioned in your outline logically in English. Only thing i want to say is your alternative explanation can be better. since

第二段说明report未必能证明seminar对automobile racing 有效。可能这个项目是industry办的，再或者seminar的参加者已经很厉害了，参加seminar对他们没有什么帮助；
第三段说明QC未必合适我们的mechanics，因为可能seminar是很前沿的，很学术，未必能给我们的mechanics带来一定的技术经验，同时，这个项目automobile racing去了，说明更适合他们；

for two different points, your alternative explanation is almost the same.

DonDonDonUID: 2779126

10# lingli_xiaoai

恩，这点我赞同，我只是注意到了逻辑链和推理，但是却忽略了文章内部possibilities的复杂性，而这些possibilities也与文章深度和推理严密性有关~~谢谢指导哈，虽然只列了提纲，但是学到很学到了很多东西。。。再次感谢哈~~

shadow1987UID: 2605840

8# lingli_xiaoai

小哀姐，不足之处还请指点了：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1131197&extra=

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

8# lingli_xiaoai  

小哀姐，不足之处还请指点了：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1131197&extra=
shadow1987 发表于 2010-7-30 16:05

俺回复了～快考试拉。。加油啊～