【甚解小组】范文开头段分析 FROM 99

周九UID: 2769406

argument response的时候argument到底如何写，看了北美范文，新东方模板，感觉题目说了那么长，基本除了summarizing就是summarizing，到底开头段的作用是不是summarizing呢，只有ets知道，所以下面是对ets4分，5分，6分开头分析，想要弄清楚，开头段的作用是什木。

周九UID: 2769406

Argument test 1: Speed Limits in Forestville

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

“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.”

Models from Practice Book

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 6

The argument 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.【summarizing】

COMMENTARY


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.  

概括了内容，整理了关系，但并没有说其后自己要写什么, 这是少数的开头进行summarizing的高分范文，不知这个开头的唯一贡献是不是就是
‘noting the argument seems logical’.

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 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【summarizing】. 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.



COMMENTARY


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:


第一句总结，第二句算是指出问题吧, 但第一句除了总结以为，还体现了logic in assuming a connection，所以也不是单纯的总结。

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 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.


COMMENTARY


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:

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.

从评论看，貌似连summarizing都不算，废话字数太多，就会得到relatively insubstantial的评价，所以开头总结两句就ok袅。

周九UID: 2769406

Argument test 2: Scott Woods

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 6




This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.

The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.

This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.

COMMENTARY


This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument. However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.


开头开三段，commentary是 summarize but do not immediately engage the argument，给前三段定义为summarize，另外发现的是summarizing竟然属于不engage the argument。。。

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 5

The author's argument is weak. Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal. For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed. It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site. He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds. He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields. He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.

COMMENTARY

After describing the argument as "weak," this strong essay goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address

如果那三句算开头的话，第一二句描述weak，第三句就到核心部分，也许ets希望的开头是灰常简洁的吧

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 4


The argument that the writer is trying to make contains several flaws. First of all, the writer needs to be clear on whether or not he or she wishes to keep Scott Woods in a "natural, undeveloped state." To be natural and undeveloped suggest that Scott Woods is free from anything man-made. It has not been infected with man-made buildings of any kind. The author suggests that the building of a school in Scoot Woods would preserve Morganton's "natural parkland" by preventing the construction of shopping centers and houses. Yet, the building of a school would prevent Morganton from preserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses. While the school may provide substantial acreage for athletic fields, it would be still contributing to pollution, the loss of vegetation and overall disruption to the natural ecosystem of Scott Woods. Consequently, the area would not be a "natural parkland" as the author suggests.

Furthermore, the author appeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discussion on the children's participation in sports. He falsely states that the the children's use of the athletic fields that the school would provide is the best way to utilize this natural parkland. Again, the author mistakingly feels that athletic fields constitute a natural parkland. Since the author continuously misuses the word "natural parkland," the validity of the letter is weakened.

COMMENTARY

After acknowledging that the argument "contains several flaws," this adequate response identifies a basic problem in the reasoning -- the letter writer's ambivalence about the desirability of maintaining Scott Woods as natural and undeveloped parkland. The writer recognizes that the argument's confused intentions are indirectly related to a root flaw in the argument: the assumption that construction of new buildings -- even school buildings -- would not impact the preservation of the parkland. Further, the writer does a competent job of explaining how both of these problems are the result of a lack of clarity about what constitutes a "natural parkland."

开头就一句，但貌似对整体也木影响，开头
一定要短，写多了浪费考场时间哇

周九UID: 2769406

Argument test 3: Smile Bright

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.


A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth. Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life. In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently. Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 6




The argument contains several facets that are questionable. First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to quesiton. In addition, the argument assumes a correlation amounts to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to examine alternative explanations. I will discuss each of these facets in turn.




COMMENTARY



This outstanding response begins by announcing that the argument "contains several facets that are questionable." The author then develops the critique around three main points:
The writer demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing. The organization is clear and logical; in fact, the organizational plan outlined in the first paragraph is followed to the letter in the second through fourth paragraphs. The writing is fluent -- transitions guide the reader from point to point in each paragraph; sentence structures are varied appropriately; diction is apt. Minor flaws (e.g., the typographical error "quesiton") do not detract from the overall outstanding quality of this critique. For all of these reasons, the essay earns a score of 6.

没有summarizing，直接分析~

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 5


The argument above is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given. Arriving at the conclusion that people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste is not valid based on the information above.


COMMENTARY


This strong response presents a well-developed critique of the argument. It is clearly and logically organized and the writer's control of language is evident. Analysis begins in paragraph 2, where the writer identifies a root flaw in the argument (i.e., the unsupported assumption that the relationship between capped teeth and Smile-Bright is causal). The critique proposes two external factors that may provide alternative explanations for the apparent "causal" relationship.


有commentary看，这个开头算summarizing，不算分析，恩~看来原来写的大多数开头都是summarizing，没有很大意义。

周九UID: 2769406

SCORE 4



This argument has nice examples but is not very logically sound. I'm sure that there are many people that have capped teeth that never used Smile-Bright toothpaste. Has a similar study been done on people using other brands of toothpaste? Also, did all of the patients in the study see the same dentist? Maybe the dentist was faulty. Additionally, were all of the patients from the same geographical area? There could be a problem with the water that causes one to need caps. This argument is not telling all of the pertinent facts.




COMMENTARY




This adequate essay addresses several of the logical flaws in the argument. The writer critiques the vague and incomplete description of the survey, noting that the lack of details makes the argument unsatisfactory and logically unsound. Several criticisms are offered to support the critique:


同样没有summarizing，直接质疑…

周九UID: 2769406

Argument test 4: Roller Skating

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

周九UID: 2769406

Benchmark 6
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.

Reader Comment on 6
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt's fallacious reasoning could "...inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
从第二句开始，就是对argument整体的质疑，还少有的说到了adopting的后果，通常，我都是结尾段说的。。。