【Argue习作。。。第一次，轻拍~】

KoruruUID：3133083

The environmental impact ofcopper mining


Thefollowing appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent political rally
“Overthe past years, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over onemillion square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Miningcopper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmenaldisaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. Butsuch disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase productsthat are made with CCC’s copper until the company abandons its mining plans.”
========================================================================


正文：


The author atleast indicate two views from this text. First, author think it is the CCC thatcause the pollution and environmental problem of West Fredonia. Second, he orshe believe that if consumers do not buy any products of CCC can solve thisdilemma.

It is partly true,imagine there are such a large area are used to operate copper and mining , theair and water should be first affected. Then as the company expanded , thepopulation of labors of the company must increased, and will occupy more andmore land to develop the scale of operation. This not only raise the burden ofnatural source but also decrease the animals living space. And if CCC’s exutivefound their products are boycotted by consumer, they may take some effectivesolusions to improve the situation.

But I have topoint out some flwas of author’s assertion. In first place, there is no certainrelation between the CCC’s mining operation and the pollution and environmentalproblem. As we all know, the global environment level have been declined fromthe the Industrial Age, it not rational to attribute all blame to CCC’s activity. Tracing the root of environmental degradationof local area, not only the CCC but the global environemntal level declined alsocontribute to pollution. In second place, there is no evidence to show that CCCis the only unenvironment-friendly company, that means there maybe exist otherpolluted firm that harm the endangered animal’s environment. In addition, I donot think simply resisting purchase CCC’s products is aappropriate way topretend this problem. In one hand, CCC is not the only factor that cause theenvironmental disaster, in the other, maybe CCC have to cancle the mining planby consumer’s resistance, but as long as the mining company existence, thepollution will never eradicate.

Insum, Rome is not built in one day. The environmental disaster of West Fredonia,cannot ignore the negative impact on centuries of global industrialization thatcause the degration of environment and do not take other element of pollutioninto account. Resisting the company’s pruduct may reminder CCC give moreattetion to endangered spiece and deterioration of environment that change their method to make benefit, it cannot wholely alleviate the environmental crisis of WestFredonia.




=========================================================================


额。。。小生第一次写A,自己也感觉到了一些缺点


1.尚未从四级作文模式里面走出来。基本上还是是三段式或者四段式，(“总-分-总”结构）,写完后拿北美范文一对比，觉得格式首先就不是      很正确。其次是逻辑问题辨析得不够深入，还是类似四级作文模式”蜻蜓点水“式一样的。


2.感觉用词有些重复，承上启下的逻辑连接词也不够。


3.句子有语法错误。（话说自己虽然看出来了，但是改起来又觉得么有头绪%>_<%）


欢迎大家拍砖~~~也希望筒子们能够吸取小生的教训%>_<%

SakuraguoqiUID：3148198

题干：
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palean and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palean. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
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.

我的作文：
The argument above appears to be sound, however, the author erroneously oversaw several alternates thus is not persuasive to come to the conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Firstly, time-assuming is open to question. Then, the assumption is not convincing unless enough evidence necessary to ruling out this or other possibility. Besides, no discovery doesn’t mean no existing.
To begin with, the author made an incorrect time relating ratiocination. The present condition of the river doesn’t reasonably represent its ancient figure. Maybe it used to be a tiny shod or even nonexistence, thus the Paleans can get across easily. In a word, present doesn’t cover past.
Moreover, even admit that the river was deep and broad at that time, it cannot prove that the ancient Paleans could only cross it by boat. Perhaps the river was astonishingly short, so that Paleans could get to the Lothos by going around it. In this way, no boat was needed.Another alternate way to get across the river is building a bridge. What if the Palean people built a bridge, which hasn’t been discovered by the archaeologists, to get to the neighbor village? Besides, if the Paleans have made plane-like aircrafts to get across the river, they also needn’t to build a boat. These evidence shows that it’s unwarranted to make this cause-and-effect conclusion.
Further more, on the assumption that the ancient Paleans could have crossed the Brim River only by boat, no enough evidence has been shown to ensure that no Palean boats have been found get to the conclusion that there were really no Palean boats out there. Other transportation which may be obscure for its alternate usage, take the blanket as example, may be used as a boat to get to the other side. Or maybe the boat has not been discovered yet. In these conditions, it cannot be well-assuming that no discovery proves no existing, let along lead to the conclusion that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
Based on these above specific evidence, it is clear that the author was not well proved his logic chain because of the time-error, non-exclusive-error as well as the mistaken cause-and-effect error. To modify his conclusion, additional evidences are needed. To prove the Brim River was deep and broad as well as long in the ancient time, and prove no alternate transportation has been use to get to another side of the river, all these can strengthen this deduction.

SakuraguoqiUID：3148198

题干：
临近国家B的政府为促进其落后的经济，去年开展了一项对生态旅游的广告推广。今年到达B主要机场的外国游客数量翻了一番，人均收入增加了10%。为增加我国居民的收入并保护我们有限国土的天然环境，我们也应该推广生态旅游。为保证我们广告策略的成，我们应该雇佣B现任国家旅游局的主任来担任广告的顾问。

逻辑分析：
因为 今年到达B主要机场的外国游客数量翻了一番
所以 从此到达B国旅游的人数会增加
错误1数据错误
今年数据片面布局代表性，不能说明从此以后都这样的情况；反例：可能去年气候反常所以游客特别少，而今年只是以往正常情况
错误2 样本不具代表性
到达机场人数不能代表全部境外游客；反例：可能以往大多数游客都坐船来，今年机场翻新，扩大规模，导致坐船的人选择飞机

又因为 去年开展了一项对生态旅游的广告推广
所以 广告导致从此到达B国旅游的人数增加-a
错误因果
二者时间的前后关系并不代表一定是因果，没有排除其他原因导致结果的可能性；反例：今年来的人可能去的都不是广告宣传的地方

因为 今年人均收入增加了10%
又因为 去年开展了一项对生态旅游的广告推广
所以 广告导致旅游业推动收入增加-b
错误因果
1人均增加不一定由旅游业推动，2 即使由旅游业推动，也不代表由该广告造成，没有排除其他原因导致结果的可能性；反例：1可能今年该国家发现大量原油，依靠出口原油导致人均收入增加；2 可能游客增多不是因为广告，而是因为今年该国气候特别好，或者汇率特别低
由 a b
所以 我们国家也应该推广生态旅游
错误类比
没有说明二者情况相同；反例 B国自然环境优美，而我国主要靠重工业，环境很差
所以 应该雇佣B现任国家旅游局的主任来担任广告的顾问
错误因果
没有说明该国主任是该国广告的主要力量；反例 主要是主任的助手策划和执行的

SakuraguoqiUID：3148198

这两天刚开学事情有点杂，明天一定改你的A哦~加油↖(^ω^)↗

SakuraguoqiUID：3148198

这是你在30min内限时写的？我觉得第一篇是不是最好不要限时，等结构和逻辑熟练了，再限时？
首先最好先把写好的文章放到word里让它改正一下低级拼写和语法错误，然后自己修改逻辑和语言到满意的程度，再让别人修改，这样进步比较大，也给别人省时间~
低级拼写错误我已经给你改了。The author at least indicates two views from this text. First, author thinks （think 用在argument 里面似乎不太好，略显主管，可以改成concludes）it is the CCC that causes the pollution and environmental problem of West Fredonia. Second, he or she believes that if consumers do not buy any products of CCC can solve this dilemma.

It is partly true, imagine there are such a large area are used to operate copper and mining, their and water should be first affected. Then as the company expanded, the population of labors of the company must increase, and will occupy more anymore land to develop the scale of operation. This not only raises the burden of natural source but also decrease the animal’s living space. And if CCC’s executor found their products are boycotted by consumer, they may take some effective solutions to improve the situation.

But I have to point out some flaws of author’s assertion. (前面铺垫和让步略长吧，快到篇幅一半了，最好能精简到三四句话，放到第一段，然后第二段开始就批斗作者不足。你这样对他太客气啦~)In first place, there is no certain relation between the CCC’s mining operation and the pollution and environmental problem. As we all know, the global environment level have been declined from Industrial Age, it not rational to attribute all blame to CCC’s activity. Tracing the root of environmental degradation of local area, not only the CCC but the global environmental level declined also contributes to pollution.（原题中will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster，并没有实际破坏环境，这只是一种假设，似乎批驳跑题了） In second place, there is no evidence to show that CCC is the only no environmental-friendly company, that means there maybe exist other polluted firm that harm the endangered animal’s environment. （同上，文中并没有说CCC is no environmental-friendly company，我觉得这也是批驳的一个关键点，就是CCC买地不等于Mining copper，而不应该批驳它是唯一的污染企业）In addition, I do not think simply resisting purchase CCC’s products is appropriate way to pretend this problem. （我觉得这个反驳到了点上）In one hand, CCC is not the only factor that cause the environmental disaster, in the other, maybe CCC have to cancel the mining plan by consumer’s resistance, but as long as the mining company existence, the pollution will never eradicate. （这个范例举得很成功）
In sum, Rome is not built in one day. The environmental disaster of West Fredonia cannot ignore the negative impact on centuries of global industrialization that cause the degradation of environment and do not take other element of pollution into account. Resisting the company’s products may reminder CCC give molestation to endangered specie and deterioration of environment that change their method to make benefit, it cannot wholly alleviate the environmental crisis of West Fredonia.

Over the past years, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. But such disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC’s copper until the company abandons its mining plans.
我写的提纲：
1.        偷换概念
CCC purchased land in West Fredonia不等于Mining copper，也许它买来修建员工宿舍，或者投资房地产。
2.  错误因果
West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species 推不出Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster；West Fredonia很大，也许CCC买的是荒地，沙漠，而非endangered animal species的栖息地，因而不会result in pollution and environmental disaster
2.        错误因果（无排他性）
if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC’s copper until the company abandons its mining plans，such disaster 不一定can be prevented首先拒绝购买没法阻止产品已经生产出来了，已经造成了环境污染。其次，正如你所说，可能还会有其他公司生产铜，破坏环境。

总之，我觉得你应该好好看看别人怎么抓住关键逻辑错误，怎么组织行文思路。共勉吧~