【NINE小组】第七次作业—by wywcgs

wywcgsUID: 2565269

一周没写状态变差了，总觉得都不知道自己在写些什么>_<
那啥，麻烦批改的同学了

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

-----------------------------------

Generally speaking, I agree the statement that the meditating of the knowledge of a student is more significant than how well he grasps the fact.

Focusing on thinking ability fits the purpose of education well. In my opinion, the purpose of education is to build student’s views of the world, life and value which should be found by students themselves and which cannot be found in any books. An excellent student who is good at meditating should own definitive these views, while a student who only knows reading books will be confused in the face of them which will influence his whole life. So evaluating students by their thinking ability is good for fostering their views hence affect the lives. It’s the ultimate duty of educator.

Moreover, evaluating students by their thinking ability is good for the development of preeminent students. Thinking ability is the essential element for researching which takes an important part on the development of science. As a Chinese idiom said, “Reading no books is better than believing everything from books”. The experience of Donald Knuth, a great computer scientist, is a good example. There was a custom in Knuth’s college that a student could get a high score without attending the final exam if he could solve a very hard problem the professor assigned in his course. Knuth finished his college life with many high scores by solving such problems. Obviously it’s a better method to evaluate an outstanding student than merely examining him how much knowledge he remembered from the books. Giving excellent students much spare time to research something they favorite, this method is obviously good for their development.

Admittedly, examine students how much they learn from the book is not a too bad method. But in fact, it is harmful in evaluating some prodigies sometimes. Let’s take the Hermite, a great mathematician in 19th century, for example. Hermite was well known among the top mathematicians for his contributions to math even when he was a college student. Surprisingly, he hadn’t gotten his PhD degree for a long time only because he could not pass the math examination, an examination full of knowledge written in books which required much time to remember. Undoubtedly he merited a PhD degree, but it was the ossified memory examination that retarded him. It illustrates the importance of the assessment of student’s true ability rather than of their memory.

To sum up, a good student is expected to make more contributions than others. An assessment cannot be considered reasonable if the so called “good student” according it don’t have true ability to make great contribution. It is why the evaluating by their thinking ability is important.

oncoUID: 3114426

1# wywcgs

Generally speaking, I agree the statement that the meditating [是想说，思考这个意思么？meditate 一般指沉思，冥想啥的。思考哲学宗教的问题，或者精神方面的训练spiritual exercise. 用个一般的词不好么？]of the knowledge of a student is more significant than how well he grasps the fact.

Focusing on thinking ability fits the purpose of education well. In my opinion, the purpose of education is to build student’s (students') views of the world, life and value which should be found by students themselves and which cannot be found in any books. An excellent student who is good at meditating should own definitive these views, while a student who only knows reading books will be confused in the face of them which will influence his whole life. [这句话我实在不知道在说啥。把它说明白一点]So evaluating students by their thinking ability is good for fostering their views hence affect the lives. It’s the ultimate duty of educator.
[第二段大概说，关注思考能够让教育影响人的各种观念。这个要由他们自己来找，而不是书本。由于好学生能够思考，不好的不能。所以，评估学生的思考能力能够发展他们的观点因此影响他们一生。

我觉得中间是缺少东西的。首先是那个所以的句子，为什么”评估”就能够good for … 呢?是因为评估导致，教育的重心在思考这一块，学生去思考了，才能够good for…吧。其次，那个So前面的论证我觉得也不充分。感觉就在绕圈子。为什么评估能够对学生好？还是没有说清楚。只说了“思考好，好的学生会思考。于是按思考评估会很好。”]

Moreover, evaluating students by their thinking ability is good for the development of preeminent students. Thinking ability is the essential element for researching which takes an important part on the development of science. As a Chinese idiom said, “Reading no books is better than believing everything from books”. The experience of Donald Knuth, a great computer scientist, is a good example. [我没有看到后面的例子跟这句谚语有什么关系]There was a custom in Knuth’s college that a student could get a high score without attending the final exam if he could solve a very hard problem the professor assigned in his course. Knuth [他叫Donald吧，Knuth是他的姓吧？应该说名字吧？] finished his college life with many high scores by solving such problems. Obviously it’s a better method to evaluate an outstanding student than merely examining (examine, 前后结构对等吧) him how much knowledge he remembered from the books. Giving excellent students much spare time to research (on)   something they (去掉they, favorite是形容词)   favorite, this method is obviously good for their development.
[这一段说，按照思考能力评价学生对好学生发展好。然后就说了很多思考能力如何重要。紧接着举了一个Donald Knuth的例子。注意例子，例子说，他学校可以做难题不背知识得高分。Donald这个人做了很多难题，得了很多高分。

于是，所以说，“obviously”, 这是个好方法来评估杰出学生么？

那，发展好是如何体现的？因为Donlad这个人后来是杰出数学家么？或者我看到了，他得了高分？]

Admittedly, (to)   examine students how much they learn [觉得改为have learned会不会好一点]from the book is not a too bad method. But in fact, it is harmful in evaluating some prodigies sometimes. Let’s take the Hermite, a great mathematician in 19th century, for example. Hermite was well known among the top mathematicians for his contributions to math even when he was a college student. Surprisingly, he hadn’t gotten his PhD degree for a long time only because he could not pass the math examination, an examination full of knowledge written in books which required much time to remember. Undoubtedly he merited a PhD degree, but it was the ossified memory examination that retarded him. It illustrates the importance of the assessment of student’s true ability rather than of their memory.
[总觉得这一段意思和上一段意思差不多的么…绕来绕去的说。并且我都看不出来最后是怎么illustrate这个importance的。危害天才，就是表现在延迟拿到学位么。或者后面说的，retarded him? 那他后面还成为了伟大的数学家！？
总结说来，你的观点是，要采取这样的评估方式，因为
1， 思考能力对学生好。
2， 不这样的话对学生不好。
好吧，我主要觉得第一个其实可以多说一点，思考能力怎么对学生好了。而且那个例子实在比较薄弱。第二个，我觉得例子实在没有看出harmful有多么的严重。感觉不是很贴切。]
To sum up, a good student is expected to make more contributions than others. An assessment cannot be considered reasonable if the so called “good student” according it don’t  (改成doesn't)   have true ability to make (a) great contribution. It is why the evaluating  (要么改成evaluating，要么改成evaluation)   by their thinking ability is important.



[第一次改作文...其实我写这个很纠结。也不知道给lz提个什么建议好。
不过我觉得lz可以多注意一下例子的适合度的问题，我觉得如果没有合适的例子还不如不要生套例子，感觉很不好。
第二个就是基本的语法错误。不知道是不是因为最后一段时间太紧张了。]

wywcgsUID: 2565269

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.

------------------------------

The experiment the arguer showed looks sound at the first glance, but in fact he fails to provide a persuasive experiment result by neglecting several essential problems in it.

First of all, the arguer doesn’t describe the feeling of testers when they wake up in the third week, which vitiates the statement that the testers were cured. A Long and sound sleeping doesn’t necessarily imply a high quality one. Sleeping a long time only indicates they lack sleeping, and the soundness is only an appearance observed from outside by others. In fact, even the testers also felt tired in the third week, it didn’t imply that they didn’t become better. It’s enough to say that the testers were healthier than before if their tiredness was not as serious as the second week. So more evidences should be provided to determine the status of the testers at the end of the experiment.

Even we concede the recovery of the testers, the arguer also fails to prove the sufficiency of the time and person used in this experiment. As is everyone known, the medical experiment usually costs a long time and many testers to get a reliable result. However, the arguer believes in the result a mere three-week-long experiment in which only 30 people involved without providing any evidences of its validity. It’s possible that lavender flowers have some long-term negative effects which cannot be detected in 3 weeks, or the efficiency of lavender flowers is available only in some specific conditions which the experiment meets by chance. So we cannot think lavender flowers to be a good choice to cure insomnia.

At last, the arguer fails to elucidate the relationship between the recovery of testers and the efficiency of lavender flowers. He arranged the same group of people to take two medicines, and he didn’t provide any evidences to explain which one leads to the recovery of testers. Maybe the recovery was the outgrowth of the medicine the testers took in the first week, and lavender flowers didn’t do anything good for their health. There is another possibility that the testers slept longer and more soundly in the third week only because they were tired in the second week. There are many factors influence their sleeping quality, so it’s presumptuous to suggest that lavender flowers is good for curing insomnia.

To sum up, evaluating the efficiency of a medicine is not as easy as the arguer said. There are many factors required to consider and many experiments required to make. We must be prudent when suggesting a medicine to patient because their healthy are held in our hands.

oncoUID: 3114426

The experiment the arguer showed looks sound at the first glance, but in fact he fails to provide a persuasive experiment result by neglecting several essential problems in it.

First of all, the arguer doesn’t describe the feeling of testers when they wake (waked) up in the third week, which vitiates the statement that the testers were cured. A Long and sound sleeping doesn’t necessarily imply a high quality one. Sleeping (for) a long time only indicates they lack sleeping, and the soundness is only an appearance observed from outside by others. [这句话会不会太绝对了]In fact, even (if) the testers also felt tired in the third week, it doesn’t didn’t imply that they didn’t become better. It’s enough to say that the testers were healthier than before if their tiredness was not as serious as the second week. [这两句我真心没有看懂是想表达什么]So more evidences should be provided to determine the status of the testers at the end of the experiment.

Even (if) we concede the recovery [recovery是什么意思？恢复情况？]of the testers, the arguer also fails to prove the sufficiency of the time and person used (比如改成participated)in this experiment. As is everyone known, the medical experiment usually costs a long time and many testers to get a reliable result. [cost many testers是不对的搭配]However, the arguer believes in the result a mere three-week-long experiment in which only 30 people involved without providing any evidences of its validity. It’s possible that lavender flowers have some long-term negative effects which cannot be detected in 3 weeks, or the efficiency of lavender flowers is available only in some specific conditions which the experiment meets by chance. So we cannot think lavender flowers to be a good choice to cure insomnia.[只是不能够证明薰衣草可以，但是也不能这么否定它不能啊]

At last, the arguer fails to elucidate the relationship between the recovery(?) of testers and the efficiency of lavender flowers. He arranged the same group of people to take two medicines, and he didn’t provide any evidences to explain which one leads to the recovery of testers. [文中有提到吃两种药么？]Maybe the recovery was the outgrowth of the medicine the testers took in the first week, and lavender flowers didn’t do anything good for their health. There is another possibility that the testers slept longer and more soundly in the third week only because they were tired in the second week. There are many factors influence their sleeping quality, so it’s presumptuous to suggest that lavender flowers is good for curing insomnia.

To sum up, evaluating the efficiency of a medicine is not as easy as the arguer said. There are many factors required to consider and many experiments required to make. We must be prudent when suggesting a medicine to patient (patients) because their healthy (health) are held in our hands.[对这句话有点小吐槽，为啥患者的健康就在我们手中啊==]

感觉论证没有多大的逻辑关联，并且不够明晰，有点东拉西扯的。
此外，语法用词错误比较多。不知道是不是因为写的时候比较仓促。