【NINE小组】第七次作业—by lovetian

lovetianUID：2899734

Educators should base their assessment of students' learning not on students' grasp of facts but on the ability to explain the ideas, trends, and concepts that those facts illustrate.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position

As is intensely described in the thought-provoking statement, not only does the author focus on the opinion that educators should put their emphasis on testing students whether they can explain the ideas, trends, and concepts of those facts taught by teachers but also insinuates that this kind of ability is more significant than rote memorization when we assess a student's learning. However, in my point of view, it is not a perfect recommendation which is suitable for all the students of all ages. It depends on the students' age that what kind of assessment we should use to test the students' learning because becoming educated is such a process in which students will face different knowledge and the require of these knowledge is unlike.

What is most important for a student studying in a primary school or even in a kindergarten, understandingness or rote? Most of them don't have the ability to catch the ideas or trends of the things taught in the class, such as alphabet or the multiplication tables; so when students are in this period, educators should base their assessment of students' learning on the fact if students have kept knowledge in their mind. Thinking of a little child who learns the alphabet, they memorize the name, sounds, and order of the letters by rote but don't know why they do this and what does these letters trend; all of these rote learning create the necessary foundation to learn other important skills. Could we ask them to catch the ideas of these letters' order? Certainly no, just because they don't have ability and don't need to know that; so why the educators shouldn't focus on students' grasp of facts when they assess children's learning.

Then, when we talk about the students who are enrolled in the secondary school, rote memorization and conceptualizing maybe have the same position to the students; both of them play important roles in students' learning. In this time, they will face a large amount of information which they should fix to their memory and most of the information is axiom; it means students need only remember them and use them but have no need to understand them. Besides these axioms, there is also some information require students to conceptualize, such as chemical formula. Students are taught hundreds of formulas when they study chemistry, but the aim of this subject is not just want students to simply memorize how the formula contains, teachers ask students to understand why these formulas exist and how we find it, furthermore, the trends of these formulas are also needed. Educators should focus both of the ability when they do assessment to the students.

Finally, educators should pay attention to the students' ability to analyze, evaluate and create knowledge when they grow up and become college students. After students enter a college, they must come to recognize the ideas through which they see and experience the world; they must take explicit command of their thinking; they must become the master of their own ideas which requires students to think about why the knowledge appear like that. They don't need to rote this information, they don't need to focus on memorization through repetition, and they are required understanding of material which means students have to develop a deep understanding of knowledge. A person who can only repeat other's thought can't act as a truly free person and such kind of people can hardly contribute to the society in any field. So the educators have to base their assessment of student's learning on the students' ability to have a clear picture of the world or the things happen around them.

lovetianUID：2899734

An ancient, traditional remedy for insomnia—the scent of lavender flowers—has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored electronically. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. At the beginning of the second week, the volunteers discontinued their sleeping medication. During that week, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. Therefore, the study proves that lavender cures insomnia within a short period of time.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.



In this argument, the arguer concludes that the traditional remedy for insomnia is effective. To strengthen this conclusion, the arguer provides a recent study about 30 volunteers who are tested by three kinds of methods to cure insomnia and he or she thinks that the consequence of experiment is positive. At the first glance, the study cited by the arguer might be somewhat reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

First of all, the study introduced in the argument is not a successful one; we can’t conclude that the reason why volunteers slept more soundly is the scent of lavender in the third weeks. Because these people have taken their usual sleeping medication for one week before, maybe the concentration of the medication come to an excellent time or perhaps these medications cure the insomnia within a short period of time so that the testees slept better in the third week. Without eliminating the influence of the medication, I cannot accept the arguer’s point of view that lavender can cure insomnia.

Second, even assuming that the influence of the medication they have taken before has absolutely disappeared, the experiment is still supposed to be unsuccessful because the arguer haven’t told us what have the volunteers done when they were tested in those three weeks. Maybe they are required to slept at the first two weeks so that they couldn’t slept soundly or feel tired after sleeping, which can easily understand by our common knowledge. And it is possible that the volunteers are asked to do exercise for a long time during the daytime in the third week; and because of this, people feel more tired than before so that they can sleep more soundly and longer. For that matter, we cannot achieve the answer that the pillows with the smell of lavender do cure the insomnia in these three weeks.

Finally, even I concede that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks because their insomnia is cured by the scent of lavender, the number of study’s volunteers is too small so that the result of experiment is not credible. As a common knowledge, the reason why people suffer from insomnia is multitudinous, such as tension, physical illness, or mental illness, so that just test the therapy on 30 volunteers cannot come to the conclusion that this method is efficient. Besides that, even if the number of testees is enough, the experimenters intend to examine if the scent of lavender will cure insomnia, he or she should set two groups of people, one is group experimented on and the other is control. Without a rational experiment, we cannot accept the consequence of a study which serves as a proof.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion about efficiency of the traditional treatment to insomnia is not well supported as it stands. The author must develop the study so that it can be used as a proof to support the idea of author.

wywcgsUID：2565269

As is intensely described in the thought-provoking statement, not only does the author focus on the opinion that educators should put their emphasis on testing students whether they can explain the ideas, trends, and concepts of those facts taught by teachers but also insinuates that this kind of ability is more significant than rote memorization when we assess a student's learning. However, in my point of view, it is not a perfect recommendation which is suitable for all the students of all ages. It depends on the students' age that what kind of assessment we should use to test the students' learning because becoming educated is such a process in which students will face different knowledge and the require of these knowledge is unlike (whose requirements are distinct).
What is most important for a student studying in a primary school or even in a kindergarten, understandingness (understanding) or rote? Most of them don't have the ability to catch the ideas or trends of the things taught in the class, such as alphabet or the multiplication tables; so when students are in this period, educators should base their assessment of students' learning on the fact (去掉?) if students have kept knowledge in their mind. Thinking of a little child who learns the alphabet, they (前后主语不一致啊，a child <-> they) memorize the name, sounds, and order of the letters by rote but don't know why they do this and what does these letters trend; all of these rote learning create the necessary foundation to learn other (further?) important skills. Could we ask them to catch the ideas of these letters' order? Certainly no, just because they don't have ability and don't need (去掉?) to know that; so why the educators shouldn't (don’t) focus on students' grasp of facts when they assess children's learning.
Then, when we talk about the students who are enrolled in the secondary school, rote memorization and conceptualizing maybe have the same position to the students; both of them play important roles in students' learning. In (During) this time (period), they will face a large amount of information which they should fix to their memory and most of the information is axiom (a large amount of information most of which is axiom which they should fix to their memory); it means students need only remember them (去掉) and use them but have no need to understand (直接写without understanding就好了吧) them. Besides these axioms, there is also some information require students (required, 被动的，不是知识要求学生理解，使有人要求学生理解知识) to conceptualize, such as chemical formula. Students are taught hundreds of formulas when they study chemistry, but the aim of this subject (whose aim) is not just want students to simply memorize how (what ?) the formula contains, (少连词……或者干脆起新一句算了) teachers ask students to understand why these formulas exist and how we find it, (又是连词问题。furthermore是副词) furthermore, the trends of these formulas are also needed. Educators should focus (on) both of the ability when they do assessment to the students.
Finally, educators should pay attention to the students' ability to analyze, evaluate and create knowledge when they grow up and become college students. After students enter (entering, 主语不断重复很单调) a college, they must come to recognize the ideas through which they see and experience the world; they must take explicit command of their thinking; they must become the master of their own ideas which requires students (them) to think about why the knowledge appear(s) like that.(Taking explicit command ....., they must become ......, 不管怎么说我觉得在英文中出现原文这种“排比”很别扭) They don't need to rote this information, they don't need to focus on memorization through repetition (用neither…nor联接一下吧, don’t need neither to rote …nor to focus on …), and (but) they are required understanding of material which means students have to develop a deep understanding of knowledge. A person who can only repeat other's thought can't act as a truly free person and such kind of people can hardly contribute to the society in any field(s). So the educators have to base their assessment of student's learning on the students' (their) ability to have a clear picture of the world or (and?) the things happen (去掉就好了吧) around them.

感觉汉语思维现象比较严重…… 嗯，其实大家好像都差不多的样子。我改了一些，希望对你以后写句子有些启发……
至于结构我没什么好说的。我觉得这篇文章的结构很清晰，在这方面我没什么可挑剔的。
论证部分的话，总觉得例子偏少。当然这个题材本身是不太好举例……

wywcgsUID：2565269

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the traditional remedy for insomnia is effective. To strengthen (prove, 结论不能说增强吧) this conclusion, the arguer provides a recent study about 30 volunteers who are tested by three kinds of methods (method) to cure insomnia and he or she thinks that the consequence of experiment is positive. At the first glance, the study cited by the arguer might be somewhat reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.

First of all, the study introduced in the argument is not a successful one; we can’t conclude that the reason why volunteers slept more soundly is the scent of lavender in the third weeks. (这个小段讲的是medicine对结果的影响。我的理解是你想把这句看成这一段的中心句，可实际上这句其实可以把后面所有段的意思一并概括了，说得太笼统。) Because these people have taken their usual sleeping medication for one week before, maybe the concentration of the medication come to an excellent time or perhaps these medications cure the insomnia within a short period of time so that the testees slept better in the third week. Without eliminating the influence of the medication, I cannot accept the arguer’s point of view that lavender can cure insomnia.
Second(ly), even assuming that the influence of the medication they have taken before has absolutely disappeared, the experiment is still supposed to be unsuccessful because the arguer haven’t told us what have the volunteers done when they were tested in those three weeks. Maybe they are required to slept at the first two weeks so that they couldn’t slept soundly or feel tired after sleeping, which can easily understand by our common knowledge. (这句意思看不明白，是想说他们在非睡觉时间也被要求睡觉么？) And it is possible that the volunteers are asked to do exercise for a long time during the daytime in the third week; and because of this, people feel more tired than before so that they can sleep more soundly and longer. (我觉得这个例子值得探讨。对失眠患者而言，累不代表可以睡得好吧，否则还需要大费周章的用各种方法治疗么) For that matter, we cannot achieve the answer that the pillows with the smell of lavender do cure the insomnia in these three weeks.

Finally, even I concede that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks because their insomnia is cured by the scent of lavender, the number of study’s volunteers is too small so that (so small that) the result of experiment is not credible. As a common knowledge, the reason why people suffer from insomnia is multitudinous, such as tension, physical illness,(去掉) or mental illness (我猜测失眠应该算是一种心理疾病吧，或者至少physical illness和mental illness肯定有一个是包含失眠的。你在这里列出它的上义词，貌似不妥), so that just test the therapy on 30 volunteers cannot come to the conclusion that this method is efficient. Besides that, even if the number of testees is enough, the experimenters intend to examine if the scent of lavender will cure insomnia, he or she should set two groups of people, one is group experimented on and the other is control. (在我看来实验对照组更像是用来排除它因，比如第一段所说medicine的影响，可以设置对照组一个只用medicine，一个用medicine+lavender。如果你想证明多种情况下都有药效，那我认为最好的方法应该是在各种情况下进行实验) Without a rational experiment, we cannot accept the consequence of a study which serves as a proof.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion about efficiency of the traditional treatment to insomnia is not well supported as it stands. The author must develop the study so that it can be used as a proof to support the idea of author.


我觉得第一段和第二段实际上都是在说“因为其他因素的影响，导致我们无从判断lavender是否真的发挥了作用”。而这两段其实只是列出了两个不同的具体因素罢了。我认为完全可以把它们并在一起，弄成一个论点，分成两个说有点太浪费。
而且如果这样的话，感觉总体的攻击点就显得有些偏少。我觉得那个excel里面提供的建议，就是他们没有说明第三周病人起床后的感觉，也是个不错的想法。这样的话，结构可以变成：它们的实验没有真的说明病人被治愈了 -> 就算是被治愈了，也不一定是lavender的功劳 -> 就算是lavender的功劳，也不一定在任何情况下都有效。这样应该会紧凑的多。
然后就是例子问题，我对例子的看法直接写在原文里了。觉得很多地方可以讨论。
基本就是这样了。提交的晚了，在此道歉。