独创yang式打狗棒法（针对argument）

yangmchUID：2963923

更改过一些网友的作业，发现有个通报就是模板痕迹重化与分析浅层化！

毫不夸张的说，如果把众多G友的文章翻译成中文的话，我相信大家都会发笑，简直是小学作文水平程度嘛！

针对于此问题，本人独创一招argument 破解法，由于每个人的经历不同，可以去模板化。

首先阐述下yang 式打狗棒法：

1.      
1.
首段应该点明大的逻辑错误——具体反问每个错误点——分析起头句；


2.
中间段，点出一个具体的错误——举例具体话分析——上升到理论高度——总结尾句


3.
末尾段，呼应首段，针对每个反问回答或者，用理论观点阐述，将文章再来个升华。


本人这个模式（注意，想要模板的就没看了）没有模板的痕迹，因为举例与理论升华是主观层次，每个人的主观不同则会


写出不同的文章，因此，避免了雷同性！


最后，用一篇我改的习作将此法演绎一些：


说明：
1）.——红色的表示错误；——蓝色的表示我的修改
2）.——洋红的表示值得商榷；——紫罗兰表示值得学习

修改过程如下：
1.
In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that by using an innovative treatment named lchthaid, it will prevent cold and lower absenteeism in West Meria（句子表达不慎标准，个人认为应该这样：using an innovative treatment named lchthaid can prevent cold and lower absenteeism in West Meria 或者:it's effective to prevent cold and lower absenteeim through using an innovative treatment named lchthaid in West Meria，也就是抄原话也应换个句式抄）. To justify the conclusion, the author cites a recent study that in nearby East Meria（语义混淆based in nearby East Meria是基于EM研究）, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctors only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. The author also point out that colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. However, close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.（末尾了开始说有错误，赞一个！但很遗憾仍旧没有点出什么错！就比如跟大家说过来，我发钱了，来了，但你却又做其他事去了，给人很大的扫兴。而美国人跟中国人的思维不一样，他们讲求第一句话就说重点。）

总结：第一段，找因！其实就是变换顺序把题目抄一遍！是众多argument-er的做法，从安全系数角度来讲，保险且凑字数，但从文章立意和结构角度来讲，无创新！从传统角度来讲，作者找因没有错误，但如果想得高分就应该换个思路。如果，让我们用中文攻击的话，你想你会不会把给出的题目给抄一遍了？肯定不会，而是直接指出什么错误!
所以，个人认为，应点题——犯什么错了！先把总的错误一句话说出来，再依次用排比句例举其他分错误！一气呵成，犹如滔滔江水，黄河泛滥一发而不可收拾。震住别人。个人要写的话，应该这么写：

What the main errors caused by the author are eisegises and unrigorous causanlity.which reseach paper testified there have one necessary relation between absentism and cold? having one even if,How could you assure it's used to school? moreover, where the reseach based in East Meria came from? who conducted? How got the conclusion? Finally, all of above are reasonable, How much should be taked to students preventing absentism on the quantity of ichthaid ?,according to above, therefore, I’ll analyse them one by one on the follow.

To begin with, the study must be showed to be(to be 应该直接删掉吧) reliable before I（应用泛词好点吧：one） can accept any conclusion the author arrives at based on it. However, the author showed no information about the number of people participated in the study(这个具体化举例非常好，支持具体化说事！如果再具体一点：the requir based one person can’t standar for more than ten’s,similarly,the problem based a small specimen can’t also reflect a large one’s. ). Moreover, since the  study only covers people nearby East Meria, it is entirely possible that they are in fact not representative of people from the West Meria, which renders the inference based upon it highly suspect(前后两点都是一句话，没有展开，给人一种高潮要到却有戛然而止！仔细看，moreover后的论证与前一条论证还是停留在同一个层面上：人数上。不构成层层递进或并列的结构。个人认为，可以写研究方法，研究的对比指标等一一铺开。。。。。。。).

In addition, the argument unfairly claims that eating a substantial amount of fish is the result of less cold rather than some other phenomenon(后面rather than some other phenomenon是不是太过牵强附会了？细读好几遍感觉这句话很别扭，我知道你是想表达这段文章并没有直接的指出不冷的原因就一定是因为服用了鱼油，但这句话本身却表达不了这个含义。两点错误：1.不是这篇文章而是研究报道，2.result用错。个人改的话，会这样改：in addition,the study dones’t certified that eating substantial amount of fish resulted in less cold.然后该段沿着这个论点继续深入，具体化 ). It might be sure that eating a substantial amount of fish could increase people's health condition, yet the author ignors a host of other possible reasons. Perhaps people living near East Meria usded to doing a lot of exercise, say, jogging, hunting fish, playing basketball. Or perphaps the local people live in such a harmonious community that result to the healthy state both in phisiological and mental aspect（具体化，很好，我突然想到了你假设举个对比的例子，比如你有两个朋友，一个经常吃鱼而一个经常锻炼，但反而那个吃鱼的常感冒跑医院，而锻炼的却鲜少得感冒，具体化了，而且又有话说，字数绝对保证！）. In short, without ruling out all other possilble explanations for less cold, the author cannot convince me that eating a certain amount of fish could leads to less cold.
Finally, even of that（that 可以删掉） all the foregoing assumptions are justified （加correct）, the argument still suffers from claiming that Ichthaid is a promising way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Only by giving a further study on the feedback of using people(换成people have taked) could convince me the effectiveness of this supplement, it is highly possible that this supplement derived from fish oil(应删掉，有凑字数的嫌疑) has a less value compared to the real fish（real 应删掉）. Moreover, even this supplement has a valid effetive in reducing cold, there are still insurfficient evidences to convince me that it will accordingly reduce absenteeism in schools and workpalces(有点牵强附会，你应该指出工人和学生的差别), for instance, students in school may just use the cold as an excuse to avoid going to school.（具体化假设，非常好！赞一个。我喜欢用反问和排比攻击错误，给人无可招架，虽句子短但有力，但要注意在用这两点是，要具体化举个例，最好了）

总结：第一段个人应该在首段点破的错误上进行具体化分析，越具体越好，如你的具体和我增加的一句举例具体化。或者，另外一个写法就是升华到理论的高度。


In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading（其实，尾段和首段是argument最好写的两段，尾段写作就可以把我写的第一个大错物写一遍,最后这一段回答首段我提出的那些问题，首尾呼应；或者讲你的见解，把文章升华到理论的高度，比如可以先将内因与外因对事物的决定程度，然后指出缺课或旷工的发生最终还是内因决定的，需要寻找内因并解决掉，然后你再给出针对内因的解决措施如通过制定相关的制度来预防缺课或旷工，而不是想着从吃什么东西来预防等等。那么文章水平立马实现了质的飞跃。）. To make it logically acceptable, the author should have to demonstrate that the study in the argument is reliable and eating a substantial amounat of fish is the main reason for less cold. Moreover, I would suspend my judgement about the credibility of thiss argument until the author can provide more imformation that Ichthaid has been put into use in West Meria and has been proved that people who suffer from cold are siginificently reduced compared to before; and evidence that people who are absent from school or work are actually caught cold.

咖啡盐UID：2973669

LZ我看好你！

睡到自然醒UID：2814923

谢谢lz，lz的写作风格有点类似raccoon前辈

快乐小水鱼UID：2762984

楼主说的好，顶~~能否帮我看下这篇？
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-1217386-1-1.html