【甚解小组】practice test 里面的argument 范文分析

周九UID：2769406

最近，小组开始讨论argument袅，瞬间又产生了很多新疑问，再读GRE Practice Book，又有了很多新发现，也就有了好多新感想，贴出来，和大家共同讨论下。作为 AW Intro读后感得子篇~~~


FROM GRE PRACTICE TEST


Argument Topic
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.

周九UID：2769406

我的逻辑分析图：第一幅逻辑链图来回改了好几天，期间还在小组讨论的时候被大家修改过，下面这幅逻辑链图，也用了两天的时间来反复修改过的，我觉得做逻辑链图时，收获很多，比如更容易确定major flaw，更清晰其中的逻辑机构，要反复想其中做了哪些assumption，才能由此及彼。

推荐大家思考argument的时候也做幅逻辑图，开始的时候可能很费时间，但其中的收获良多。


The Line of Reasoning

周九UID：2769406

根据逻辑链进行的分析：


推理过程中，有3和6这两个重要的unstated assumptions，只有它们assumption成立，才能顺利得出结论。

先看assumption 6：Unstated Assumption: increased speed limits can caused more accidents




step 1：accident真的增加了么？




A：accident是和6个月前相比有所增加，6个月时间不长，不足以说明。所以，没有提高限速的Elmsford的交通事故水平并没有保持不变，而是略有下降。
此外，比较时间也不合适，如果出具去年同期数据，应该更有说服力，比如Forestville是个旅游城市，每年逢此季，交通量会猛增，所以每年此时交通事故也会比淡季时要多。




B：increased by 15%来支持交通事故猛增，若要充分证明，需要进一步提供交通量的基数，若Forestville’s high way 原有交通量小，偶发交通事故就会大大提高百分比，同上，旅游旺季是交通量远大于旅游淡季时候的，这样，事实上，交通量的1%发生了事故，就会使原有交通事故猛增15%。

step 2：如果真的增加了，是由提高限速引起的吗？




argument 当中的evidence是以Elmsford的情况来证明提高限速会导致交通事故。这就有了另一个unstated assumption，Forestville=Elmsford。
如果，Forestville与Elmsford的情况不尽相同，那这个evidence就无法证明提高限速会导致交通事故。若想充分证明结论成立，需进一步介绍两地路况，交通量等。
比如，



a. Forestville和Elmsford的路况不同
如Forestville的highways多弯道，坡度大，Elmsford的路平坦少弯，若调查期间，大雪，大雨，能见度低的时候，Forestville的交通事故多发。

b. 背景状况不明，比如Elmsford的交通事故略有降低，可能暗示着，调查期间，Elmsford highways正在进行安全宣传活动或者增大了对公路的监控管理力度，而Forestville却没有。
所以，在诸多因素不明的情况下，由Elmsford的情况类推Forestville的情况是武断的。

结论：提高限速可能是导致交通事故猛增的原因之一，但在进一步调查明确其他因素之前，无法证明其就是引发交通事故的主要原因。

周九UID：2769406

Benchmark 6


The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.


However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.




A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. Again, the demographics of the population are important. It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight. Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.




Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.



WORDS：510

周九UID：2769406

Reader Comment on 6

This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical." It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis. Alternatives mentioned are that

Be careful, alternative explanations 出现, 当自己写argument的时候，想用alternative explanation，就可以再回头看此篇，比如argument 1 Plainsville那篇。另，alternative explanation的特点是比较详细，并不是轻轻一笔带过的那种。


the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;

Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents;

six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;

demographics might play a role in auto accidents;

population and auto density should be considered; and

the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.

The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay. Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation. For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax. The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique. This is an impressive 6 paper.

对于cogently developed 和linked 的评价非常中肯，因为当画完逻辑图之后，整篇推论基于的两个大assumption正好是作者的两段。
Transitions and connections 也甚是smoothly，由此看来ets所追寻的思维框架中有非常严正的逻辑，但实际写出来的文章却不是像演绎syllogism那样，难道这就是传说中的手中无剑，心中有剑。。。额。。。

周九UID：2769406

Benchmark 5

The argument above presents a sound case for arguing that if the region of Forestville wants to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should consider reducing the speed limit to what it was before the increase in speed limit took place 6 months previously. However, there are some intermediate steps that one could take before jumping to the conclusion that reducing the speed limit is the only way in which traffic accidents can be reduced.

窃以为，这篇5分开头就失去了6分开头那种点明题目中逻辑关系的作用。




First of all, I would examine the actual number of traffic accidents that occurred before and after the speed limit increase and compare this to the size of the region and its driving population. For example, if the Forestville region's driving population is 1 million people, and the traffic accidents for a 6-month period before the speed increase totaled 100, then the 15% increase would amount to an additional 16 traffic accidents, or 116 total. For a population of 1 million, there may be other solutions to this increase besides reducing the speed limit to what it was. (The comparison to the region of Elmsford would only be helpful if the regions driving demography is comparable in terms of size and scope.) A public education campaign emphasizing driver safety and safe driving techniques may suffice to reduce the number of traffic accidents. Especially considering that if the number of accidents relative to the population is somewhat small, it is a fairly safe driving population anyway.

165 WORDS 都贡献在这段15%的讨论中，是否值得呢？




In addition, I would consider lengthening the time of the study. Six months may be a relatively short period of time for which to study the rate of traffic accidents. Upon a closer examination of when the accidents occurred, one might ascertain that most of the driving accidents occurred within a month of raising the speed limit, but that there have been relatively few additional accidents since that first phase-in period. Lengthening the study to a one-year period would help adjust for any untypical statistics and paint a more accurate picture of the long-term affects of the speed limit increase.

只有upon 引导的一句是reasons and examples中的examples。难免会被批驳为“neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed”。


I would also examine what else was occurring in the region during the period of the study. For example, was there a major highway construction project happening during this time which would have added to the unsafe nature of raod travel? Are there any alternative explanations for why the increase in traffic accidents could have occurred, or is the increase in speed limit the sole variable? Looking at the type of accidents that occurred, I would examine whether these are the types of car accidents one would expect from traveling at a faster speed to corroborate the cause and effect relationship.


WORDS: 446

周九UID：2769406

Reader Comment on 5


As in the sample 6 essay, this writer sees some logic in assuming a connection between the higher speed limit in Forestville and the increase in auto accidents. Unlike the sample 6 essay, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed. The writer makes these points in the critique:


A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in accidents is not as significant as it might seem.





A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the problem.





A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major conclusions.



Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.

Although each of these points is developed and sensibly supported, the critique is not sufficiently full to warrant a score of 6. The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions. The occasional flaws (e.g., the somewhat garbled syntax in paragraph 3: "…time for which to study the rate...") do not detract from the overall strong quality of the essay. For all of these reasons, this critique is strong but not outstanding, and thus merits a score of 5.


比较两篇文章，为什么一篇被评为an impressively full analysis，另一篇被评为neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed。此外，我还发现，6分作文给出的是alternative explanations，5分给出的是points，按照intro中说的，alternative explanations才是ets所寻找的吧，新G里面每个argument都给出了明确要求，指明讨论的对象，如alternative explanation 或者 assumption。


忽然又想到educated taste的问题，这篇文章逻辑条理非常清晰，其清晰程度甚至高于6分作文，语言也很流畅，但只能的到5分，估计这就是ets 所能接受不同风格论证的极限了。但话又说回来，ets对于response出的文章，给予了十分鲜明喜好倾向指导，在参加考试的时候，还是应该按照ets 的taste写文章的。

周九UID：2769406

Benchmark 6	Benchmark 5
the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience; Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might contribute to accidents; six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate; demographics might play a role in auto accidents; population and auto density should be considered; and the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.	A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in accidents is not as significant as it might seem. A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the problem. A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major conclusions. Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.
six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;	A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major conclusions.
A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads.	In addition, I would consider lengthening the time of the study. Six months may be a relatively short period of time for which to study the rate of traffic accidents. Upon a closer examination of when the accidents occurred, one might ascertain that most of the driving accidents occurred within a month of raising the speed limit, but that there have been relatively few additional accidents since that first phase-in period. Lengthening the study to a one-year period would help adjust for any untypical statistics and paint a more accurate picture of the long-term affects of the speed limit increase.
长度相近，但此段给出的是reasons and examples；划线部分还照顾到了对比组Elmsford。在TS后，给出了在此情况下，argument讨论的场景中出现了什么情况，从而影响得出结论。	这段给出的是reason，但没有充分说明是这个reason带来的影响是什么。这段说出了调查时间短，给出的数据不准，因为方案初行，需要适应阶段。

此外，我觉得6分作文内在逻辑很清楚，主体两段分别讨论了两大assumption，一个是auto accidents真的是大幅增加了么，一个是两地情况相等么，详见逻辑链图。忽然又想到，逻辑链中的两大assumption，是不是就是传说中的major flaw，我常常在想什么是major，什么是minor，这也许就是一个判断标准。

周九UID：2769406

Benchmark 4


At first look, this seems to be a very well presented arguement. A logical path is followed throughout the paragraph and the conclusion is expected. However, upon a second consideration, it is apparent that all possibilities were not considered when the author presented his conclusion (or at least that s/he did not present all of the possibilities). There are numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased. Although it seems logical to assume that the difference in the percentage of accidents was due to the difference in whether or not the speed limit had been increased during the specified month, this does not necessarily mean that the speed limit should be reduced back to what it originally was in Forestville. The author does not state two specific pieces of information that are important before a conclusion such as the one the author made is sound. The first is that it is not expressed whether the speed limits in the two neighboring regions had had the same speed limit before Forestville's speed limit had been increased. If they had originally been the same, then it is reasonable to conclude that Forestville's speed limit should be reduced back to what it was before the increase. However, if the two region's speed limits were initially different, then such a conclusion can not be made. The second piece of information that is necessary for the present argument is the relative number of accidents in each of the areas prior to the increase in speed limit. For the author to make the presented conclusion, the number of accidents should have been approximately equal prior to the increase in the speed limit in Forestville. If the two missing pieces of information had been presented and were in the author's favor, then the conclusion that the author made would have been much more sound than it currently is. In conclusion, the argument is not entirely well reasoned, but given the information that was expressed in the paragraph, it was presented well, and in a logical order.



WORDS: 349

周九UID：2769406

Reader Comment on 4


This competent critique claims that there are "numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased." However, the author discusses only two points:




囧，形容词不要乱用，要严谨




whether the speed limits in the two regions were originally the same; and




the number of accidents in each region prior to Forestville's raising the speed limit.


Although the essay appears at first to be well developed, there is much less analysis here than the length would suggest. The first third and last third of the essay are relatively insubstantial, consisting mainly of general summary statements (e.g., "A logical path... conclusion is expected" and "If the two... more sound than it currently is"). The real heart of the critique consists of minimal development of the two points mentioned above. Therefore, although two important features of the argument are analyzed and the writer handles language and syntax adequately, the lack of substantial development keeps this critique from earning a score higher than 4.




废话多，不过，学到很多，比如形容词用得要严谨，numerous不敢乱用。还有，就是之前确实没有想到，两地之前的速度到底一致不一致。

周九UID：2769406

Benchmark 3



This argument does not have any concrete information. It seems by Forestville, increasing their speed limit more accidents occured. We all know that
accidents occur reguardless of what the speed limit of the highway we travel. Fortunately, Elmsford's accidents decreased during the six-months
in discussion. This could be because of
good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations. On the other hand, Forrestville had an increase in accidents. The only determining factor given was
the speed limit increasing. This in fact probably did play a big role in why there was a 15% percent increase in the accidents, but may not be the only factor. In order to make an accurate judgement on why there was an increase in automobile accidents the situation needs to be researched. Solid facts need to be stated. Clearly, to reduce the speed limit back to normal in Forrestville would not eliminate the problem.

Reader Comment on 3



This limited critique is plainly flawed. The author begins with a criticism about the lack of "concrete information" but then fails to provide any concrete analysis in the essay. The writer cites the drop in Elmsford's accidents but does not develop any of the reasons mentioned to account for the drop: "good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations."



评语说的很有喜感，你说人家没concrete information，那你怎么还敢不给出concrete analysis。此外一个很重要的信息就是，如何才算develop的充分，至少这样不算：This could be because of good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations. 但如此类型的develop，很眼熟，我们好多作文都是这样develop的，只是把good weather类的断词组变成，或者干脆变成句子。但这样依然是没有深入develop，据6分作文看来，深入develop的意味着，继续往下说，good weather 的情况下，是如何如何的。。。






The writer then goes on to discuss Forestville and suggests that the speed limit "may not be the only factor," but this point is not developed either. The author issues a generic call for more research and facts and offers an unsupported conclusion of his or her own: "Clearly, to reduce the speed limit... would not eliminate the problem." Although the author appears to know that there is something wrong with the argument, he or she does not seem to know how to critique the argument in greater detail.



亮点：in greater detail才是ets所期望的。并不只是给出原因就可以了事，要进一步的往下写。






The response demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing, but the analysis is so underdeveloped that it cannot earn a score higher than 3.



说了develop和in greater detail指得是什么。

周九UID：2769406

Benchmark 2


The argument gives statistics of increases in automobile accidents since the speed limit increased six months ago on the highways of Forestville. The argument also gives a statement of how the neighboring region of Forestville, did not increase or decrease the speed limit. It remained unchanged and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. The argument may appeal to those who have been effected by the increase in accidents, but it does not give an emotional appeal overall. We are relying on the authors statistics but we don't know where they came from and if they are reliable. The argument needs more examples and illustrations to get his point across to more people. It is suggested that the citizens of Forestville campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase, but it is usually hard to start a campaign. One person needs to take action. If the author is a citizen of Forestville, maybe he should take the initiative.


Reader Comment on 2



This seriously flawed critique presents only one idea relevant to an analysis of the argument topic: "The argument needs more examples and illustrations to get his point across to more people." Everything else in the essay is either summarizing the argument, speculating, or offering advice. The result is an essay that is clearly on topic but that provides no analysis of the line of reasoning in the argument.



这个例子就是很多时候我们作文的夸张版，on topic but no analysis of the line of reasoning.
此外，发现 summarizing，speculating, offering advice 都是无用的，所以自己写的时候，不用把自己组织好的内容以猜测和建议方式提出，但看好多时候，不自觉的就这样写了。。。注意哇，注意~


In addition to the lack of analysis, the writing is weak. The organization is loose, although not illogical, and intended meaning is sometimes unclear (e.g., "…but it does not give an emotional appeal overall."). For these reasons, the essay deserves a score of 2 according to the scoring guide.

周九UID：2769406

Benchmark 1


When we compare two things, we like to put them on the same background. same condition.




For the fact given above, in the same time, foundmentally, the two region have the same traffic condition, except, the speedlimit is improved in one, and the other keep the same. So we can get the result that the reason of the difference is that the improved speed limit. And also the change will give some other inconvinent to the people there. For example, the people will not familiar with the change, have some problem in handle the speed.
So, what I think is that the citizen should show the government the statistic number of the difference. Argue with them.


Reader Comment on 1


This essay is fundamentally deficient as a critique for two reasons:




although the writer has relied heavily on the language of the prompt, it is clear that the writer has no real control of language, and




there is little or no evidence of the writer's ability to develop an organized response.






发现：反复使用the language of the prompt, 是会被视为缺乏语言控制力。。。可我总是反复用，生怕改写之后，讨论标准就变了，思路就不严谨了，注意，注意~~

周九UID：2769406

The End~~~


灰常希望能和大家一起讨论这几天我的新发现，虽然可能对于别人这都是些烂熟于心的东西，但于我，有哥伦布发现新大陆般的狂喜~~~