我的第一篇Argument9

ikariyuiUID: 2800540

TOPIC: ARGUMENT9 - The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.

"Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors."
WORDS: 454
TIME: 01:00:00
DATE: 2011-3-20 20:37:31

The dean of Omega University (OU) drawed the conclusion that OU should terminate its professor-evaluation procedure through the following reasoning process. After the evaluation began, the GPA of OU graduates increased by 30% and such an increment was the result of the evaluation. Since OU graduates' GPA increased, employers held the perception that the grade of OU graduates had been inflated, which explained the reason why OU students were not successful in job hunting comparing with Alpha University (AU).So, in order to help OU graduates secure better jobs, OU should terminate the professor-evaluation. It seems like a cogent argument, yet several logical flaws are easy to find in the dean's reasoning process.

First, the evaluation procedure does not necessarily lead to the fact that professors in OU assign higher grade in their class. Actually, it would just because of the evaluation process that make the student get more involved in study and encouraged the professor improve their performance in teaching. Students become ever interested in studying, interact with their professor ever actively and indeed do a better in the class. Since the dean failed to rule out the possibility, the reasoning is unconvincing.

Second, there is no fair to make the deduction that the increase of OU graduates is in the potential employers' eye an inflation. Perhaps AU was and always is a better school than OU, despite the fact that OU indeed has made tremendous progress during the 15 years and that the professor-evaluation in fact has a positive contribution. Were the case true, the dean otherwise should continue the policy and try his best carry out other ones to help OU.

Finally, even if the evaluation did lead to the inflation of OU students' GPA, and that the employers did regard the increase of OU graduates as an inflation, both of them would not be the cause of the failure in OU students' job hunting. It's possible that AU was a technical school whose main purpose was to training qualified workers while OU was a research institute who concentrated on advanced scientific progress. The graduates of OU primarily choose to devote themselves in further research in their field rather than to find a job. If this was true, in stead of terminating the professor-evaluation, what should OU do is to change its education goal. While no further information is provided, I can not agree with the argument.

In sum, in dean's argument is unpersuasive in several aspects. In order to strengthen his argument, the dean should provide further details such as what kind of university OU is and what relationship lies between the increase of graduates' GPA and the professor evaluation procedure and what the real opinion of those employers toward OU graduates' quality is.

(14 spelling mistakes out 454 words)

蒲若苇UID: 2669670

错误：红色 修改评价：紫色 亮点：橙色   题目分析：蓝色

TOPIC: ARGUMENT9 - The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.

"Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. (事实) Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. (事实) Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated (推论); this would explain why 【Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University】(【】内的是事实，但分号后这句话是推论) . To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors. (推论)"




The dean of Omega University (OU) drawed the conclusion that OU should terminate its professor-evaluation procedure through the following reasoning process. 【After the evaluation began, the GPA of OU graduates increased by 30% and such an increment was the result of the evaluation. Since OU graduates' GPA increased, employers held the perception that the grade of OU graduates had been inflated, which explained the reason why OU students were not successful in job hunting comparing with Alpha University (AU). So, in order to help OU graduates secure better jobs, OU should terminate the professor-evaluation.】 It seems like a cogent argument, yet several logical flaws are easy to find in the dean's reasoning process. (首段过长，写得太罗嗦了，Argument的首段一定不要是照抄原文。看看这个帖子：“谁再想复述Argument题目的 把这段话给我读十遍 恩”https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1122632&highlight=，【】内的用一句话总结出来，具体的数字30%，比较对象AU首段中都不用出现。)

First, the evaluation procedure does not necessarily lead to the fact that professors in OU assign higher grade in their class. Actually, it would just because of the evaluation process that make the student get more involved in study and encouraged the professor improve their performance in teaching.
(因果关系有些混乱，改为Actually, it would be probably because the evaluation process encouraged the professors to improve their performance in teaching, which got students more involved in study.逻辑上更合理)
Then Students have (用完成时较好，对现在造成了一定影响) become more interested in studying, more actively interacted with their professors and indeed done a better job in the class. Due to these reasons but not the evaluation procedure itself, students got higher grade than before.
(在列完可能性后，要与文中错误推论联系起来：分高是由于给教授的evaluation procedure，这样才是完整地攻击了一个错误点，打破原题中错误的逻辑链。你论述了evaluation procedure的积极影响以致学生分数变高，其实分变高可能性还有别的原因：15年来可以改变的地方有很多，比如学校制定的对学生成绩的评分标准改变了，学校提供了新的奖励学生的方式促进了学生更努力的学习以致得到高分数。分数的变高可能与这个evaluation procedure没有任何关系。这些都可以推翻原题中的推论。) Since the dean failed to rule out the possibility, the reasoning is unconvincing.

Second, there is no fair to make the deduction that the increased grades of OU graduates is in the potential employers' eye an inflation. Perhaps AU was and always is a better school than OU, despite the fact that OU indeed has made tremendous progress during the 15 years and that the professor-evaluation in fact has a positive contribution. (这个点的入手写得不错，但论述得还是不够深入，原题中关于AU的信息除了其毕业生找工作比OU强以外什么都没有提供，那么这里可供写的方面就很多了，你也写了AU可能一直都比OU强，那么是哪些方面强呢？这些方面又是如何导致其就业时比OU强呢？这些和OU毕业生的成绩高有关系吗？写Argu的时候多问为什么，多深入讨论，不要仅仅停留在表面。你的这段的思路是对的，本来可以写成很好的一段，但你3句话就结束了本段，白白浪费了一个攻击点。) Were the case true, the dean otherwise should continue the policy and try his best to carry out other ones to help OU (与原题无关).

Finally, even if the evaluation did lead to the inflation of OU students' GPA, and that the employers did regard the increase of OU graduates as an inflation, both of them would not be the cause of the failure in OU students' job hunting. It's possible that AU was a technical school whose main purpose was to training qualified workers while OU was a research institute who concentrated on advanced scientific progress. The graduates of OU primarily choose to devote themselves in further research in their field rather than to find a job. If this was true, instead of terminating the professor-evaluation, what should OU do is to change its education goal. (这之前的论述不错，但我隐约感觉到这是某篇范文里的内容吧，如果我记错了勿怪。如果是你自己想出来的这个论述角度，那说明你的思路很广，不错！如果不是的话，最好自己想其他方面的原因：比如地理因素，毕业生的择业要求等。最好不要照搬别人的思路。写完这个之后可以再写一下提高OU就业率还有其他方法，OU不能指望取消evaluation procedure就能提高就业率，这就可以对原题中我标记出的最后一个推理进行攻击。)While no further information is provided, I cannot agree with the argument.

In sum, the dean's argument is unpersuasive in several aspects. In order to strengthen his argument
(conclusion), the dean should provide further details such as what kind of university OU is and what relationship lies between the increase of graduates' GPA and the professor evaluation procedure and what the real opinion of those employers toward OU graduates' quality is. (结尾段不错！)

小结：
（1）论述过于浅显，不够透彻深入，每个攻击点只是“点到为止”，虽然你的攻击点找对了，但论述不到位的话等于白找，一个点的论述到位要比肤浅的写完2个点有用的多。多问为什么，多举由题目的事实得到的可能性的例子，多举一反三，层层论述，你的文章会丰满很多。
（2）开头段写得过于罗嗦，一篇文章肯定应该是两头段中间长，你的开头段竟然比下文中的论述段都长。开头简单明了，不要复述原文中的内容。结尾段写的不错，但考官对结尾段看的可能不太多，最重要的还是正文内容。
（3）有的句子意思表达的不够地道，多看看地道的英文文章，找issue例子或素材的时候注意一下地道的英文表达方式，避免简单的“汉译英”。