【作文铺子】over

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

2.11考试
TOPIC: ISSUE130 - "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."
这篇文章自己改了很久，但是还有些问题。
首段写的比较简练，不知道可不可以。
主体论述部分，这次主要注意了论据论点间的逻辑关系，这点是我认为最重要的。但感觉废话多了，而且不知道这么写算不算有效地论述。关于什么是更深入的阐述，我不是很了解。还有就是自己的语言，感觉很生硬，而且意思表达的可能不准确，希望lZ可以多提提宝贵意见。
谢谢！
The destiny of society deeply depends on the sustainable development, which is not only related to how children are socialized but also related to their realistic skills. When it comes to the next assertion that we have not yet learned how to raise children for a better society, I realize that it is not a reasonable statement. Actually, we have already known what to do to teach children. The reason for that we do not raise children well lies to the fact that we do not act properly.

Admittedly, socialization of children influences the destiny of society greatly. How children are socialized determined whether they will take sustainable development into consideration. For example, by learning the history, the young realizes the social responsibility on their shelters. They knows that on this planet, there are many other people living with them affected by
their decisions and their next generations still need the same resources to survive. Thus, they will think about their way of development with the consideration of others. Here is an instance. During this socializing progress, students learn that thanks to the excessive use of forest, more and more flood happened and destroyed the villages, even took people's lives away. What is worse, it raised the temperature and caused some other environmental troubles which are harmful to next generations. Therefore, after noticing the terrible influence, even though most of this group of children is still in school, they have already thought about new ways, more beneficial for the people living around the forest and more sustainable, instead of the previous one. This example well illustrates that how socialization guides the children possess a sense of the sustainability.

However, it is unfair to say that how children are socialized plays the most important role to the destiny of society. Indeed, the realistic skills are as vital as socialization. Without practical skills, socialization can not solve the problems alone. For instance, application of the renewable energy, like wind energy, have decreased the use of fossil resources and it is more friendly to the environment. It helps people make the sustainable society come into reality. But, if we did not master the skills learned from education to take renewable energy into practice, we now may still utilize the fossil ones even though we have dreamed to make an alter for a long time.
Hence, it is reasonable to utter that the intellectual skills laid the foundation of sustainable development.

As to the next claim, I hold an opposite view. In fact, we have already learned how to raise children in a right way for a sustainable world. The advertisement about how to build a sustainable society can be seen everywhere and we have promised many times to teach our children from every detail. But, we do not take the proper action as what we say and see. It is a common phenomenon in our society, nowadays, that parents always keep water flowing while washing the plates and keep the lights on when they do not need these lights indeed. These wasting actions convey a wrong message that waste is permitted to their children. If you ask the parents what should do, they definitely can give you a perfect answer. Thus, we can notice that the reason for the failure is caused by our misleading doings.

In conclusion, the socialization gives children an idea about a sustainable society and the intellectual skills make the idea become true. Both of them are important to the destiny of the society. In order to teach our children to bring about a better world we need to focus on the details.

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

蓝色：逻辑结构  绿色：我的建议 紫色：评注 红色：有问题的地方
TOPIC: ISSUE130 - "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."

这个题目的关键词是：destiny of society & a better society
重点区分概念：
1.socialized是个什么概念？
2.你认为的society's destiny是由什么determine的?
3.是否是socialized children决定社会命运?
   3-1.如果是就从socialized入手
   3-2.如果不是那进一步考虑是什么决定社会命运？
4.什么是a better society?
5.怎样的children能help bring about a better society?
6.是否是socialized children?
   6-1.如果是同3-1联系起来
   6-2.如果不是再进一步考虑是什么样的children 能带来一个更好的社会？
7.我们已经知道如何培养建设更好社会的孩子了么,or have not yet?

经过以上的分析，你就可以确定你对题目的立场，从而提出你自己的观点，把你思考的过程整理出来，文章的框架就差不多了。


OK，接下来看你的文章O(∩_∩)O~


The destiny of society deeply depends on the sustainable development, which is not only related to how children are socialized but also related to their realistic skills. （很好）When it comes to the next assertion that we have not yet learned how to raise children for a better society, I realize that it is not a reasonable statement. Actually, we have already known what to do to teach children. The reason for that we do not raise children well <1>lies to the fact that we do not act properly.
<1>这里有些偷换概念的感觉, 题目说的不是教育孩子教育得不好，而是没有学会培养教育socialized children。从你的观点来看，你忽略了对5/6/7的考虑。

首段有些小小的问题，观点出来了，但是思维有些跳跃，对题目两部分的分析感觉没有很好地联系起来，如果能结合socialized& realistic skilled children来谈你认为现在对孩子的教育是否到位更能把文章的核心统一回来，不至于感觉首段主题不明确。

Admittedly, socialization of children influences the destiny of society greatly. How children are socialized determined whether they will take sustainable development into consideration. For example, by learning the history, the young realizes the social responsibility on their shelters（这个词用的是不是不妥？我猜你是想写shoulders吧？）. They knows that on this planet, there are many other people living with them affected by their decisions and their next generations still need the same resources to survive. Thus, they will think about their way of development with the consideration of others. Here is an instance. During this socializing progress, students learn that thanks to the excessive use of forest, more and more flood happened and destroyed the villages, even took people's lives away. What is worse, it raised the temperature and caused some other environmental troubles which are harmful to next generations. Therefore, after noticing the terrible influence, even though most of this group of children is still in school, they have already thought about new ways, more beneficial for the people living around the forest and more sustainable, instead of the previous one. This example well illustrates that how socialization guides the children possess a sense of the sustainability.

这段写得不错，例子很到位，你从认识现实环境方面来体现socialized. 但是，用的逻辑连词admittedly感觉就是这个观点是你在下文将要否定的，只是部分肯定它。而在你的首段提出not only...but also...这表明，两者是并列且递进的，即都重要，但是后者更重要。这两个逻辑连词的运用有些不匹配，还请斟酌一下。

However, it is unfair to say that how children are socialized plays the most important role to the destiny of society. Indeed, the realistic skills are as vital as socialization. Without practical skills, socialization can not solve the problems alone. For instance, application of the renewable energy, like wind energy, have decreased the use of fossil resources and it is more friendly to the environment. It helps people make the sustainable society come into reality. But, if we did not master the skills learned from education to take renewable energy into practice, we now may still utilize the fossil ones even though we have dreamed to make an alter for a long time. Hence, it is reasonable to utter that the intellectual skills laid the foundation of sustainable development.

注意到你的本段主题提到的两组逻辑连词，unfair to say... the most important & as vital as, 这两个逻辑连词其实是相互矛盾的，前者说不是最重要的，这就是说还有比它更重要的，暗含一个比较级，而后者则说一样重要，比较级就没有了，这样就形成了前后矛盾。其实你可以把前面的改为not the only significant factor that...（这只是个例子，你可以用其他更好的表达）。
还有一点就是，注意下两段的平衡，有的时候段落的长短也表征着该段落的说服力度,可以充实一下例子，具体些，多加些把例子和主题联系的内容。


As to the next claim, I hold an opposite view. <2>In fact, we have already learned how to raise children in a right way for a sustainable world. The advertisement about how to build a sustainable society can be seen everywhere and we have promised many times to teach our children from every detail. But, we do not take the proper action as what we say and see.<3> It is a common phenomenon in (today's)our society, nowadays, (去掉） that parents always keep water flowing while washing the plates and keep the lights on when they do not need these lights indeed. These wasting actions convey a wrong message that waste is permitted to their children. If you ask the parents what should do, they definitely can give you a perfect answer. Thus, we can notice that the reason for the failure is caused by our misleading doings.
<2>这个opposite view应该明确写出来。
<3>这句话和主题有什么关系？

这段的观点还是承接首段的后半部分，但是也要明确地表达出来，不然会显得很突兀。
例子的运用不太好，这个例子虽是从生活中来的，但是没有充分地结合主题。
同样，在文章平衡问题上做得不好，没有说服力度。

In conclusion, the socialization gives children an idea about a sustainable society and the intellectual skills make the idea become true. Both of them are important to the destiny of the society. In order to teach our children to bring about a better world we need to focus on the details.（尾段原则上不看）

总体看来，你的思路还是有的，但是没有梳理好，应该把思维的过程整理好，先建立一个整体的结构框架。
语言方面还是不太流畅，但也不是主要问题，关键还是进行逻辑构架。
例子从生活中来都用的可以，但是这样做也有风险，必须要把这些例子充分和主题结合起来，否则就会缺少说服力。比起那些重大事件，名人例子，这样的例子不容易让读者很快引起共鸣，所以例子虽然取材丰富，但是用好也是个大学问。

剩下半个月的时间，自己多考虑下文章的结构，每篇文章做到主题统一，逻辑清晰。加油！

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

又来捧场鸟！第二篇，有点中规中矩，后面又改了改~~~请紫陌SAMA过目.....a ri ga dou go za i ma su~~O(∩_∩)O~

P.S.应紫陌斑斑心理需求，偶再帖个argument供选...昨日第一次AI，1+1写出来的argument，还请包涵....

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

非常感谢LZ对我这篇ISSUE的详细点评。并且我的确获益匪浅。
中间段落的逻辑连接词的指点非常好，以后我会注意的。
不过我还有些问题想再讨论讨论。
1。你说我的首段观点不同一，我承认感觉是有点散。但是这篇文章我在北美范文里也见过，他就是分着说的：
I find the speaker's dual claim to be specious on both counts. The claim that society's destiny hinges on how children are socialized, while appealing in some respects, is an over-statement at best. And the claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better society is poorly ported by empirical evidence.
我知道北美不一定篇篇都好，但是我还是想请教一下对于这种题目的观点是不是一定要像你说的那样统一起来。
2。第二句话的观点我其实持肯定态度的。我的观点是：我们已经知道了怎么教育孩子，但是做得不好。
在论述中我在讲应该怎么做。我想确认一下我这么说是不是就是叫做偷换概念了。如果不偷换的话，那我是不是应该写：我们知道怎么做，然后举例子证明我们已经知道怎么做了。？
3。你说我的逻辑构架不好，我想问是不是开头句的那几个逻辑词不好？还是有其他方面的不好？这点我最担心。
4。对于例子，很多人都有写名人的，但是毕竟很有限。我担心会背叛雷同什么的。还有如果要是选择了这种生活的例子，应该怎样论述更让人信服呢？

PS：我看了LZ对Issue109 （关于广告）的评语。其中有一个部分我很不理解。就是在第二段中作者选择了medicine as an illustration， 但是你说这是以偏概全。但是，这不也是常说的具体化么？这点我很迷惑，望指点。

再次感谢LZ 的点评，谢谢！

iToldUsoUID: 2929900

汗颜的我过来强烈sp下~~~~

uniquebossUID: 2440712

2月17号机考
这个写的是第一篇,所以心里很没有底,想了解一下大致的改进方向. 第一次写,很痛苦,憋了两天,但后来再改,就发现容易很多。感觉写的时候有些混乱，对于topic，会纠结与某一点不停的绕着，好像写的内容都是有些并列的，而不是循序渐进的逐步深入。
并且由于第一篇，单词什么好像都是最简单的，没有特色。

写完之后自己修改过几遍,也看了别人的提纲了文章,但好像怎么没有人关于一开始的那个 harmless展开呢? 我看见的第一反应就是harmless.
   
16 "Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, in fact, they actually prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals."



Evolving with the development of technology and economy, the contemporary life has become more luxury and more convenient than before. As we create the luxuries and conveniences, they also affect us gradually. The speaker suggests that although the luxuries and conveniences of current life are entirely harmless, they actually prevent people from turning themselves into truly strong and independent individuals. But I disagree with this. The personal choice is the only thing that would determines how a man is, while others, such as the living environment, just play a little part in influence. And the harmless of modern life is also questionable.

Admittedly, the luxuries and conveniences do actually affect our lives. They make our lifes easier and more comfortable.
Such as, the automobile makes it easier to travel a long distance, the computer and Internet make work more efficient and communicate much easier, and so on. They all have been essential parts of our daily life. To this degree, they are actually helpful, at least, not harmful. But if we are over addicted to them, enjoying the easy life they bring us becomes the only thing we do. Then, the society and individuals would never make a progress, and they are no longer harmless at all.

Generally thought, adversity is more easily to make people develop into truly strong and independent individuals than prosperity. In adversity, people have no way but to rely on himself to go over it. In contrast, with the conveniences, there is no need to do things just rely on ourselves. We can drive a car, even a plane, instead of walking on foot. We can finish our jobs with the aid of computer and robot instead of doing the repeat work by ourselves. Hence, someone may think that conveniences make us become lazy and weak, no matter in physical or spirit. But there is something we should notice is that with the help of conveniences we can save much more time to do the things that are more significant and valuable. With time saved by car, we can do exercise in the gym which is better for our healthy than walking; with the vigor saved by computer for the simple and repeating work, we can do something more original and creative. What's more, with the help of current luxuries and conveniences, we can explore the new world and overcome the unknown problems. For our ancestors, there are no luxuries and conveniences of current life, so can we say they must by more strong and independent individuals? Hence, with the luxuries and conveniences, we can also develop ourselves into a strong and independent people.

However, with the luxuries and conveniences, there still exists the chance that one may not be strong and independent. With the same computer, although Bill Gates can developed the world wield Windows operation system which affects the whole world in almost every area, there are still thousands of youth lost themselves in the computer games. The luxuries and conveniences are the things that we peruse and the things that we develop to make use of. But they shouldn't be the things by which we are controlled. The effect of the luxuries and conveniences just depend on how our deal with them. And the reason that some people become weak and lazy is their own attitude toward life, not the luxuries and conveniences.

In sum, as the knife which is a tool for cutting also can be used to kill the nice man by criminal, the result depends on the knife user. If only we want to live a strong life and regard the luxuries and conveniences as a tool, they would help us to develop into strong and independent individuals.

SpriteTCUID: 2765113

斑竹好人

2月10日上海财经机考
Issue拼拼凑凑写了10多篇高频，Argue写了3篇
A自我感觉有思路和逻辑，好死不死还能写到400-450字
I写起来特别费脑，例子很难写深入，达不到AW里说的例子要少而深入或者多而浅，感觉在重复嚼大道理非常无味，结尾很容易写出来和开头一个感觉，更悲剧的是限时写根本写不完，现在在用写好的作文练习打字速度顺便加强记忆。艺术类的文章更是头疼，只能背一些别人写好的例子自己组合一下强行记忆。。。

希望能得到一些点拨，谢谢斑竹~:)

提纲：

1基本不同意
2赞成因材施教
3主观上不行
4客观上不行
5可适当结合
6END

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

1。你说我的首段观点不同一，我承认感觉是有点散。但是这篇文章我在北美范文里也见过，他就是分着说的：
I find the speaker's dual claim to be specious on both counts. The claim that society's destiny hinges on how children are socialized, while appealing in some respects, is an over-statement at best. And the claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better society is poorly ported by empirical evidence.
我知道北美不一定篇篇都好，但是我还是想请教一下对于这种题目的观点是不是一定要像你说的那样统一起来。

     北美范文我看得不多，也不好就它的具体内容给出评价。但是我知道，那些文章的作者在美国人中都算是文笔好的，有时候他可能通过个别词就能巧妙地把文章联系起来，但是我们通常是没有这种水平的。Issue的要求是你针对一个话题进行你的议论，分开观点不是不可以，我想说的是，文章毕竟是一个整体，你面对的是一个话题而不是两个。这样写最终应该是两部分有些联系的，因为很明显题目后半部分的意思还是针对要教育出socialized children。可是我发现你的文章直到最后还是把两部分分开来说。我觉得北美范文不太可能从始至终两部分没有联系，不好意思，这篇北美我真的没看过，你可以把全文链接发给我，我仔细看看它整体的结构。

2。第二句话的观点我其实持肯定态度的。我的观点是：我们已经知道了怎么教育孩子，但是做得不好。
在论述中我在讲应该怎么做。我想确认一下我这么说是不是就是叫做偷换概念了。如果不偷换的话，那我是不是应该写：我们知道怎么做，然后举例子证明我们已经知道怎么做了。？

    你的观点是没有问题的，我也能理解。我说的偷换概念只是指你的用词方面。你的表达是：do not raise children well 原文对应的是：have not yet learned how to raise... 这里应该在你写的时候是一个同义的转换吧？从题目理解，没有学会如何去把孩子教育成怎样怎样和把孩子抚养好是两码事。比如，一个孩子个人能力非常强，在科学领域有独到的见解，但是却像个书呆子，没有社会化，那么就不符合题目说的那种对孩子的要求，但是我们不能说这个孩子没有被好好抚养啊。

3。你说我的逻辑构架不好，我想问是不是开头句的那几个逻辑词不好？还是有其他方面的不好？这点我最担心。

    这个问题你把你的各段主旨句摘出来，放到一起看看，是不是一个层层支持的逻辑结构就知道了。我给你看我对文章逻辑构架的看法，仅供参考：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1074614&highlight=

4。对于例子，很多人都有写名人的，但是毕竟很有限。我担心会背叛雷同什么的。还有如果要是选择了这种生活的例子，应该怎样论述更让人信服呢？

    例子的运用是为了支持你的论点，只要你把例子和分论点紧密地结合起来就可以，你可以看看官方范文（非北美范文）是如何运用例子的。例子与文章结构的关系那个链接里也有，你可以留意下。

PS：我看了LZ对Issue109 （关于广告）的评语。其中有一个部分我很不理解。就是在第二段中作者选择了medicine as an illustration， 但是你说这是以偏概全。但是，这不也是常说的具体化么？这点我很迷惑，望指点。

    具体化是指你举例子说明的时候要具体化，而不是说你把这个段落的主题就定义到这么小的一个范围来讨论。TA的文章显然是把那一个例子作为了一个观点来说的，这样就会以偏概全。你可以看看argument的题目，很多就是在一个很小范围内发生的情况来概括整个事件的情况，你难道见到这样的不会怀疑么？你可以说在很多领域中XX现象怎么怎么样，然后take medicine as an illustration,这就强调了这个普适性问题。


个人观点，仅供参考，欢迎跟帖讨论

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

我的理解跟斑竹的可能不太一样，我以为只要把题目的主旨大意抓出来就好了，对于一些reason的部分就可以忽略不计了，所以针对一休1的话，我以为只要回应learning中agreement 和disagreement 的作用就好了，much more是作用的一种，对disagreement 后面的分号是对作用原因的解释，关于这一点，求解……

     这个应该是在你的思维过程中要考虑的，issue一个题目通常就两句话，老美是很严谨的，不可能写一句废话，肯定是从这两句话中都能挖到些东西的。这个关系到你分析的方向，至于你写的时候可能只强调它的整体观点而不太多涉及它的原因。但是它的原因也正是它结论的根据，你要和他站在一个平台上思考问题。一个相同的观点，都是公说公有理婆说婆有理的，你关键是看它为什么这么认为，然后再想你要如何说这个事情，让他觉得你说的确实比他说的有道理。

Learning is a complicated procedure through which both agreement and disagreement play their different roles. It seems to me that the author puts the cart before the horse by arguing either agreement or disagreement exerts more influence on learning, because both of them are just tools for learning in making for achieving its essence. After all, there is no use discussing functions of tools without discriminating what they are serving for. Functioning as tools, sharing agreements with the others is called for by conservation—a radical aspect of learning, while contradicting with the others is required by creation—the other essential aspect of learning.

     开头的主要作用是提出你的观点，适当地对题目给出回应。你已经用了谚语：puts the cart before the horse ，谚语就是用精炼的语言表达深刻的思想，如果你用得地道，考官是会理解的，那么because的内容其实就可以省去。如果你不是用谚语，那么就要说清楚，不能有意会的成分在里边。那么，after all 后面的内容也就没有必要写了。你试着去掉这这两句，把function as tool改动一下和前面连接起来也同样能说明白你的观点（蓝色标出的内容）。

个人观点，仅供参考，欢迎跟帖讨论


PS. 你也看到我改的其它文章的，都是很犀利的批改，对你的修改部分很少，只是从逻辑方面总体写了些建议。这个必然不是为了安慰你，你看我在顶楼的说明，一般不夸赞，批的少就是写得好，你放心便是，继续保持，一定行的！

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

25# 紫陌纤尘o0

谢谢lz的点评，这些观点我基本都明白了，那个连接我也仔细看了，谢谢。
对于偷换概念的那个问题我已经明白自己的问题所在了

“2。第二句话的观点我其实持肯定态度的。我的观点是：我们已经知道了怎么教育孩子，但是做得不好。
在论述中我在讲应该怎么做。我想确认一下我这么说是不是就是叫做偷换概念了。如果不偷换的话，那我是不是应该写：我们知道怎么做，然后举例子证明我们已经知道怎么做了。？

    你的观点是没有问题的，我也能理解。我说的偷换概念只是指你的用词方面。你的表达是：do not raise children well 原文对应的是：have not yet learned how to raise... 这里应该在你写的时候是一个同义的转换吧？从题目理解，没有学会如何去把孩子教育成怎样怎样和把孩子抚养好是两码事。比如，一个孩子个人能力非常强，在科学领域有独到的见解，但是却像个书呆子，没有社会化，那么就不符合题目说的那种对孩子的要求，但是我们不能说这个孩子没有被好好抚养啊。”

现在作了修改，希望LZ能再看看，中文的提纲

TS：我们已经知道了如何教育我们的孩子使他们socialized&master necessary skills。
后面就举例论证。
对于socialized，在学校教育他们历史等知识，在家里家长也以身作则，节约资源。共同向孩子传到可持续发展的观念。
对于skill是，学校里的老师在努力，为学生今后的发展打下好基础。
总结句，我们已经知道了。

这种思路是不是就可以了呢？

谢谢

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

蓝色：逻辑结构  绿色：我的建议 紫色：评注 红色：有问题的地方

Issue51 "Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."
---------------------------------------------------

关键思考方向：
1. Education的定义（目的）是什么？
2. 什么是truly effective?
3. 真的需要specifically designed么？
这个题目分析起来还是比较简单的，思路很多哈，就不多列举了~看文章


Considering the mission of education is to utilize the limited educational resource to meet the infinite need of numerous students, effective system of education should and must be<1> based on the common need and interest of the majority instead of each individual. Therefore, the stated proposal which goes too extreme and absolute is in no way feasible or necessary.
<1>这个你也写得too extreme and absolute了，议论文客观些，尽量不要出现太绝对的句子。

开头中规中矩，比较到位，稍作些改动就好了。

As is known to all<2>, teaching students in accordance of their aptitude is considered a accepted effective principle of education. Whether the education meets the individual needs and interests as the standard holds the rationality<3>. We would delve into what we like and learn it effectively, also with happiness. It is painful for someone to be forced to learn something boring for him. For instance, educating a child extremely gifted in classical music by the system of training the ability of logical thinking and complex reasoning set for mathematicians will be apparent<4> absurd indeed. A student with the well established values and specific striving goal such as university students is highly suggested to appropriately receive the system mentioned in the statement above.
<2>这词用得太不客观了
<3>这个没看懂，感觉是用翻译工具翻译出来的表达。
<4>同<2>

例子没有说明白，表达太主观了，都显得有些强词夺理。这些内容显然不是常识范围内的，很容易让人想问why? 最好是解释下为什么teach music不能用那种方法，会引起什么后果，说得越具体越形象越好。

Howbeit, subjectively<5> speaking, not all students hold the unambiguous desire on what they really need and interest on. We cannot neglect the disadvantages of pursuing the personal interest one-sidely in the early education. Comprehensive education which better helps establish all kinds of knowledge including personal value and morality, master of native language, maybe a second language as well, science, art, physical education and so on should be carried out especially in primary schools and secondary schools, rather than specialized courses. It is out of the question for a 5-year-old boy to understand the complicated world all-around and make the best choice for himself, whose intellect is still premature. It is the teachers' responsibilities to conduct them to have a broad knowledge system, not merely catering to their needs. After a traversal of overall knowledge, the students may choose their major more rationally. Moreover, the needs and interests are changing with the progress of society. Too early to determine and encourage the individual needs and interests may lead the restrictions on truly finding what they really want.
<5>为什么要用这个词？议论文你来一个主观地说，那么这段文字就没有任何效力了。

这段很不错，解释清楚，层次分明。BTW，你那个howbeit太狠了，从来没见过……


Furthermore, objectively speaking,due to the finite of education funding and teaching facilities, compared with the millions of students, for the educational institutions to take care of every individual's plan seems to be unrealistic.<6> In addition, the supply for the same parts overlapped in individuals would be a huge waste of educational resources. Common sense tells us that the assumption will not be the case in the near future, thus making the proposal hard to realize.
<6> 这句话有语病。这种长句子掌控不好的话就尽量不要勉强写，句子越长越容易出错，表达不清楚还露怯。

这段说理性内容不好，主体内容不明确，而且都是些抽象的理论概念，而且没有解释why？不具有很强的说服力。还是具体化为好。

In fact, the comprehensive and specific education is not mutually exclusive and conciliation between them may yield a middle round that serves better for operation. The national courses which are necessary for every student make up the obligatory courses, and other branch courses can be designed for selective ones. Every student has to learn the former ones and has the right to choose any courses from selective part at one's will, developing own strength. This proposition is more feasible and reasonable than the one-sided emphasis on individuality .

问题和上段一样，应该引起注意。


In sum, the proposal to meet the needs and interests of each student unconditionally is too fallacious. An truly effective education is first to offer sufficient basic knowledge and then provide various advanced options to further study, in which way can students acquire a all-round education.
(尾段原则上不看)

总体看来，文章的思想基本能够表达出来，前面的论述还可以，但是后面几段就写得不是很好了。说理的多，就显得没有逻辑性，很主观的感觉。语言表达方面，一些词汇用得很悬，我看了那么多英文文章都没有见过你的一些表达，如果真的能驾驭好，确切知道用法也无可厚非，如果是通过一些翻译手段得来的词汇还请慎重，GRE的文章看的是整体逻辑。长句太多，却有很多的毛病，有些影响理解的我就下划线标出来了。最好还是不要写太长的句子，简练一些，即便你写得很好很顺写成GRE阅读中那些句子，所有人看了都会头疼。

临近考试，多注意下整体的平衡，后面的内容还是充实些为好。

个人意见，仅供参考
                               by 紫陌纤尘o0

xulinxiUID: 2996978

顶版主
3.15考
第一次写 写了好长时间啊 语言表达感觉有问题 句子想写好 但能力有限
另外 分析错误时 不知道是不是要突出主要错误 还是。。。


227.The following appeared as an editorial in a local newspaper.

"In order to attract visitors to Central Plaza downtown and to return the
plaza to its former glory, the city should prohibit skateboarding there
and instead allow skateboarders to use an area in Monroe Park. At Central
Plaza, skateboard users are about the only people one sees now, and litter
and defaced property have made the plaza unattractive. In a recent survey
of downtown merchants, the majority supported a prohibition on
skateboarding in the plaza. Clearly, banning skateboarding in Central
Plaza will make the area a place where people can congregate for fun or
for relaxation."

为使闹市区中央广场吸引更多的观光者并回复该广场以前的繁荣，我们市应该禁止在那里玩滑板，让滑板爱好者使用Monroe公园地区活动。在中央广场，人们唯一可以看到的就是玩滑板的人，废弃物和损毁的公物使广场失去了往日的吸引力。在最近一次对闹市区商户的调查中，大多数人都支持禁止在广场玩滑板。显然，在中央广场禁止滑板将会使该地区成为人们可以聚集起来娱乐和休闲的场所。





In first glance，the arguer’s reasoning seems to be quite sound. According to his conclusion, banning skateboarding in Central Plaza will make the area a place where people can congregate for fun or for relaxation. To substantiate it, the author points out the evidence that too many skateboard users and litter there left have made the plaza unattractive. In addition, he cites the result of a recent survey in support this recommendation. But unfortunately, I’m afraid this argument can hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author falsely bases on a gratuitous assumption that skateboard users are responsible for the litter and defaced property that make the plaza unattractive. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. For example, it is most likely bad weather conditions make the property defaced more easy. Or perhaps, anyone in plaza might have relationship with it except the skateboarding users. Therefore , ghe argument is unwarranted without ruling out these and other possibility.

Even assuming skateboarding users are related to the conditions marking the plaza’s decline, we are also told little details about the survey. The author fails to convince us that the merchants surveyed are representative of downtown merchants overall and most of them favor the prohibition. Or if it is not the case, or if the skateboarding users are a considerable profit of the merchants, merchants there may not really want the skateboarding users to leave for Monroe Park. In short, the author cites the result of the survey dose not lend strong support to his recommendation without more evidence provided.

Even if the skateboarding users are responsible for the litter and defaced property and the survey is valid enough to support his conclusion. We still suspect that banning skateboarding in Central Plaza is the only measure to return the Plaza to its former glory. For instance, we can make the area used for both skateboarding and relaxation with bring up a series of rules. Every problem can be solved in different means. Without further investigation and analysis, the arguer cannot conclude that banning skateboarding is the only way to fix it.

Anyway, I agree that it is highly possible that banning skateboarding can return the Plaza to its former glory. But the arguer fails to substantiate it. Making the recommendation more thorough and logically acceptable, we would need more information and details to evaluate the situation.

SpriteTCUID: 2765113

28# 紫陌纤尘o0

谢谢LZ的批改~

看完心得主要有三：

1.“议论文客观些，尽量不要出现太绝对的句子”
我自己写的时候还觉得用这些词很high，主观客观都能说到很全面，“议论文你来一个主观地说，那么这段文字就没有任何效力了”看到这句就觉得五雷轰顶了，现在想想是有点over，强词夺理。

2.沉溺在长句子里是当时看ETS范文的时候养成的习惯，幻想不停地加料which that越加越长，小组里帮其他同学改作文的时候看到长句子也有莫名之火，但自己写起来就异常起劲，这到底是什么心态。。。。不论怎样，句子短一点错也会少一点，自己写起来也会轻松一点真是实话。

3.说教说教总感觉在说教，又不是本田透。。。“最好是解释下为什么teach music不能用那种方法，会引起什么后果，说得越具体越形象越好”，就是有时候想不到怎么把例子往下延展，沉不下去，我也希望越具体越好能说的也越多，Sigh。。。


PS:
1有些变态的词汇是用金山搜出来然后参考例句使用的，看来还是有点风险啊。。。

2看到LZ关于Issue130的分析，我当时对后一句教育孩子的理解也有偏差，写的是我们的确现在不懂得怎么教育孩子，然后巴拉巴拉写了一些，看完觉得因该是“不懂得培养具备社会化的孩子”，然后这个社会化和上文的社会化扯上关系，这样会更扣题一些，很有启发！

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
这是我修改之后的，充实了例子的部分，修改了最后的一段论述，逻辑稍微有一点改动，改成了Balance的观点~LZ批批~:)

TOPIC: ISSUE51 - "Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."
WORDS: 490          TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2011/1/28 20:58:58

Comparing the finite educational resource to the infinite need of numerous students, the effective system of education had better first base on the common need and interest of the majority, if possible, then meet the individual needs. To this extent, the proposal which goes too extreme and absolute is in no way feasible or necessary.

Admittedly, teaching students in accordance to their aptitude considers as an effective method of education. Students would delve into what they interest on and learn with more happiness. It is painful to force someone to saturate with something boring for him. For instance, a student extremely gifted in classic music should not be educated in the way of training a long-distance runner, the daily exercise such as jogging may contribute to the development of physical ability and endurance, which are crucial to a long-distance runner, whereas they are not suit for the gifted student. What the student really need is a free environment fulled of music and some experienced teachers to spark his inner inspiration. The overlook in corresponding method of education may ruin the precious gift.

However, not all students hold the unambiguous desire on what they really need and interest on. The disadvantage of pursuing the personal interest one-sidely in primary education cannot be neglected. Comprehensive education helps establish all kinds of knowledge including personal value and morality, master of native language, maybe a second language, science, art etc, which should be carried in primary school and secondary school. It is out of the question for a 5-year-old boy to understand the complicated world all-round and make the best choice for himself in the future, whose intellect is still premature. Teachers should take the responsibility to conduct students to have a broad knowledge system, not merely catering to their needs. After a general understanding of overall knowledge, the students may make the coming decisions more rationally. Moreover, the need and interest are changing with the progress of society, too early to determine and encourage the individual needs and interest may result in the restriction on truly finding what they really want.

In fact, the comprehensive and specific education is not mutually exclusive but can keep a harmonious balance. The existing educational system that we are carrying out is the good example. In the primary education, the national basic course including teaching students to acquire the ability of listening, speaking, reading and writing, distinguish right from wrong, establish the value and moral. And then, in higher education, various disciplines are set to satisfy the individual desire of further study. Every student has to learn the former ones and has the right to choose from the latter at one's will. The acquisition before university lay the foundation for the disciplinary study in university.

To sum up, an true effective education is first to offer sufficient basic knowledge and then provide various advanced options for further study, in which way can students acquire an all-round education.

SpriteTCUID: 2765113

看完LZ对Issue的评价感觉领悟不少，把自我感觉写的还行的一篇Argue贴上来，鉴定一下，希望A别再出什么大差错了~:lol

关于A我自己有一个模板，然后根据不同题目进行简单变化，修改后尽量达到模板味不那么重，主要攻击前提假设和重要的错误调查，然后递进论述。比较疑惑的是，A里面的举例反驳我这种程度是不是就够了，还是需要更多？

TOPIC: ARGUMENT147 - The following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine.

"Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months."
WORDS: 451          TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2011/1/19 23:20:57

The argument seems to be convincing at first glance, but actually fallacious indeed. The survey that players prefer games which provides lifelike graphics and the issue of several such games advertising by Whirlwind leads no support to the increase in sales of video games. Moreover, the author fail to recognize all the elements effecting the sales.

First of all, the author confuse the conceptions of the willingness to buy and the action to buy. The assumption that these respondents who is fund of this kind of games will actually buy one or more need to be questioned. It is highly possible that the major of respondents are children who have no enough pocket money, or some people may prefer borrowing games from friends, or just download from the Internet for saving money. If that is the case, the real buyers are countable. To better illustrate the point, more evidence about the detail information of respondents such as job, age and purchasing power is needed.

Granted this assumption that one who is fond of such kind of games will purchase one or more is valid, whereas some dubious evidences still affect on reasoning logically. The age range of respondents may be out of the target which Whirlwinf advertised at. Little evidence proves that the two group people coincide mostly. It is very likely that people at 10 to 25 feel no interest about the new games issued by Whirlwind. Moreover, the decrease sales of Whirlwind video games over the past two years may reveals some issues, such as the poor in business management and marketing or the lack of cohesion in company, which undoubtedly should not be overlooked.

Finally, the author fail to recognize other elements affecting the sales. In common sense, the cost, the selling price, the competition, the modes of sale, the purchasing power in the region and so on, all are crucial in determining the sales. If other company advertising some more attractive games and sell in a lower price at the same time, which one do you prefer? If the average of income ranks in the bottom of country and suffer from poverty, how much will they spend on entertainment? Without credible surveys on the basic information on competitor and the local condition we can not rule out all the various possibilities and bolster the recommendation.

Overall, the inference that the increasing in sales of Whirlwind video games seems to be a best wish, however, misunderstand the significant premise that willingness do not equal to action ends up in the failure in inferring the accurate conclusion. The argument could be better-reasoned by providing more evidence about the detail surveys of the respondents and other factors determining the sales.

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

19# 咖啡盐

57. The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health.

"Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well."

                                       |<1>take Zorba--25% develop new ulcers
逻辑链：frist-time ulcer study|     
                                       |<2>without Zorba--75% recurrence                                
--> prevent recurrent ulcers
--> (may) prevent 1st-time ulcer

这个题目其实就是个典型的偷换概念，认为new ulcers = recurrent ulcers, 逻辑很简单。
                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                         
Grounding on a study of a comparison between a group of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor’s direction and anther group who did not take Zorba, the arguer makes the conclusion that Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers, and to some extent<1>, first-time unlcers. To support his claim the arguer showed us a data that only 25 percent Zorba takers developed new ulcers while in the group of who did not take Zorba the rate was 75 percent. <2>While this argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at first glance, close inspection would reveal it fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted claims in several aspects.
<1>这里用得不太恰当，这两个结论其实是并列的，你用这个词组就显得后者是前者的一种情况。
<2>注意一下这里，你没有注意到题目这个大的偷换概念吧？这可是这个题的致命点啊，你就直接这么等同了……

首段倒是写得中规中矩，整理逻辑链+通用句，但是在把握逻辑链的方面还是掉进了陷阱。

First of all, it is dubious that can the patients who took Zorba mentioned by the study be representative of the whole group of patients who took Zorba? On one hand, the argument does not illustrate the exact number of patients who participate in the study. Maybe the study contains only 10 patients so that study that Zorba could actually helps prevent ulcers is unsubstantial. On the other hand, even assuming that the number of patients is large enough, yet, how could we know the circumstance of their ulcers? Perhaps these patients suffered from different kinds of ulcers that may be the root for ulcer recurrence. Without further research, the result of operational study is unconvincing.

     你看看，我就知道你没有注意到偷换概念，这个题目必然是进入一些无关痛痒的攻击点。这段是主要是基于number of patients来讨论的。你回头看看逻辑链，这个题目主要的点是神马?那必然是在这个病人服用与不服用Z的结果问题上。你再看你的论述重点放在哪里了？是不是放在这个实验的基本准备情况和过程上了？要抓住题目的关键点，阿狗要的就是一针见血，不是旁敲侧击！这种关于实验调查之类的过程和准备情况问题往往是强调结果，而不是过程，大多说人还是认为直接批实验显而易见啊！那必然，大家都能想到你靠神马比别人强啊？这种批驳点放在后面实在找不到关键点的时候凑数用的，可不能放在最开始，大忌！
     补充一下，我也不是说实验组基本情况不同者不是个重点，有些也确实是重点，比如那些两个城市建设方面的，情况不同就是不同，具体问题具体分析，关键是找到题目的侧重点。

     倒是我标蓝划线部分比你前面的论述分量要大些，可以作为大点展开来论述。注意到题目中有：new ulcers，它可以包括不同种类的ulcers,也就是说会变异吧，这和复发可是两个完全不同的概念！

Even if the study could be the representative of the whole group of patients, these two groups of who took Zorba or not remain many differences as well. First, these two groups of patients may suffer ulcers in different extent; the condition of patients who took Zorba is not as serious as that who did not take Zorba. This is possible to be the reason why there are only 25 percent Zorba takers have their ulcers recurred while the rate of who did not take Zorba is much higher. Second, it is also probable that the Zorba takers’ low recurrence is attributed to the doctors’ careful direction which the patients who did not take Zorba have not. Or perhaps patients who have their ulcers developed are due to other complication, rather than Zorba taking. The arguer failed to examine alternative explanations.

     这部分论述点找的比较到位，但是论述起来就不是那么到位了。这里你其实可以用常识想想，溃疡多发生在伤口什么感染也有口腔溃疡。所以，你在结尾说到并发症很不错，你可以把结尾的compication合并到前面去，说是由于伤病情况不同，引起的溃疡也不同。但看前半部分其实是有些抽象的，你只是说suffer的程度，但是没有具体化。然后医生的direction应该是个重点，还有个问题是Alternative Explains想得太少，比如你可以想到医生其它辅助治疗可能起了主要作用而非单单的Z这种药，这就很具体嘛，比你单撂这么一句话有说服力多了吧？

Moreover, even assuming that these two groups of patients are under the same circumstance, the arguer’s assumption that the life-size sculptures will decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value is also unwarranted<3>. The study given above mainly illustrates that patients who take Zorba could effectively prevent the ulcers from recurring and developing. We cannot get the information about whether Zorba can prevent the first-time ulcers or not. The arguer’s assumption is untenable.
<3>介个是个啥意思？这也太跳跃，太抽象了吧？arguer assume的内容要么是一步推出的，要么就直接写在那里，你这个说的直接上升到了理论高度，这N步也推不出，看了很莫名其妙的。

这段来看，就不好了，连皮毛都没扫到，你真正有用的话就标蓝的那一句。这个可是题目一个大的结论啊，要展开来说的，你这几乎没有做证明显然是不行的。

In sum, the argument is neither logically sound nor persuasive.  To better bolster and strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to guarantee us that the study must be representative and objective. And he should also provide another investigation to explain that Zorba could prevent first-time ulcers as well. （结尾不看）

     这篇文章对于新手来说还算可以吧，定是认为阿狗批驳点简单，不好好思考，上手就写，其实阿狗的逻辑要求比一休严格。一休你可以自己建立逻辑构架，而阿狗你得先找出题目的逻辑链，顺着它的来建立你的，在思维上或许没有一休那么痛苦，但是寻找能一针见血的点也是需要多想的，你要从全局看这个题目是说什么的。告你个小tip,把阿狗看两遍，然后自己用汉语跟自己转述一遍这个题目说了什么，你自己一说就清楚了。

     从你论述方面，主要问题上面都提了。关键是要充实论证，好好看intro的要求。你下次写出来自改的时候，把你文章中基本是题目同义表达的句子去掉，把上下段重复的句子去掉，再考察下你的文章还剩多少内容，就知道你的文章有多少分量了。加油！