[周年征文]再论Argument的展开和组织：实例范文详细点评！

imongUID: 140258

前言
我之前写过两篇关于argument的文章，一篇是评pooh的文章并谈关于argument的开头，另一篇是关于argument论证深入的实验，加上这篇文章再谈论证展开和文章组织，基本上小有构架。这篇文章就算作我的argument分析3部曲的终章好了。
       
这篇文章分为两个部分，分别点评了两篇ETS官方6分argument范文并在点评中对我们写argument时候出现的一些问题做了评价和说明，作为前后篇分别贴在2楼和3楼。

imongUID: 140258

一篇非典型的6分argument范文。

TEST 1: ARGUMENT TOPIC

The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.


Essay Response – Score 6

This argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which is not necessarily the case. 概括性起手——一点都不啰嗦。The argument asserts that because the country of Myria charges fees for the use of national parks, there is little evidence of environmental damage. But there are several reasons why one cannot assume that the lack of evidence of environmental damage is a result of the fact that individuals are charged to use these parks.提出来“因果”不成立。另外，看看人家的开头多简单。再次证明，新东方经典八婆开头只有在一篇6分范文里出现过——而且还立刻被commentary骂。各位自己好好想想吧。

First, just because there is a lack of evidence does not preclude the fact that environmental damage may in fact be occurring. 提出来：这个果本身就有问题。 The individuals who are testing the area for evidence of damage may not have the proper scientific instruments or educational training necessary to detect damage that may be present. 注意这里提到的具体的反驳理由，光是maybe they failed to detect相比maybe they lack the … to successfully… 当然缺乏说服力。这也是为什么我一直强调所谓的“具体”和“细节”。In fact, certain kinds of environmental damage may not be detectable in the short term even using the most sophisticated scientific methods.这样子一个in fact更进一步提出额外的可能性 Imbalance in ecosystems, for example, may only become apparent over a long period of time. 作者仍然是不放过“certain kinds of..”，直接扔出来一个“imbalance in ecosystems”，这样子一下子把原题驳得哑口无言。没有这个“imbalance”作为“具体”，达不到这个效果。这一个段落完胜。

Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage,小让一步 this does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations. An alternative explanation may be that because the country charges a fee to use the national parks, people are less inclined to use the parks. It then stands to reason that with fewer people in the parks, there will be less of a detrimental impact on the environment. 这里这一段似乎有点晦涩，不过我的理解是作者重点在于通过指出“人少了”和“捞钱了”的差异，批驳原题的最后一句by collecting fees… help preserve。In addition, even if people are willing to pay the fee, the funds collected may be insufficient to cover the costs of maintaining and preserving the parkland. 再进一步指出和“钱”实际上没太大关系。

Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot assume that this same scenario will work in Illium.再让一步，拿出杀手锏——经典错误：地区差异。看看人家怎么展开的： There are a myriad of variables that can contribute to the success of this type of environmental maintenance and restoration program.跟上面一样：光这一句解决不了问题。我们很多人的argument只是知道写到这一句，就是死活不知道再往下来上一句这个分就上去了（不知道是不是都是因为给新东方那堆逻辑名词给教的）： Pre-existing and uncontrollable environmental conditions 到这里其实都还是泛泛而谈such as the rate of erosion and the overall climate may cause damage that cannot be rectified by monetary solutions. 好，就要看这里：such as一出，立马摆平。 In addition, cultural norms regarding how one views his or her responsibility and role 更夸张了，连cultural norm都拽出来了 in terms of preserving the environment may influence the intensity of environmental damage that may be sustained. 看了这段，见识了什么叫做“具体”，什么叫做“细节”了吗？人家就是要拿实际分析，拿这种的“实例”来说明问题。“挑”逻辑错误在那里纸上谈兵并不难，可是“写”AW可是要给“说”明白的。

Thus, although the strategy of charging citizens of Myria for the use of its parks in order to collect funds for any restoration that may be required may be successful in Myria, this reality alone does not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would be effective in Illium or any other country. 结语落在了最后一段的论调上。

之所以说这篇文章是“非典型”6分范文，是因为这篇文章和目前所有其他6分范文相比有至少两点不同：第一，采用了first, second, finally这样的展开，这样子结构的6分范文只有这一篇；第二，全文的展开并不是总分总的样式，而是像流线一样，最开始的起手句其实算不上一个强的thesis，开头段的最后两句是跟body1相关的，结尾段和body3相关，这个样子的文章少见，而这次在6分文章里出现了。

这两点给我的启示就是：第一，放心大胆使用first, second, finally这样的文章结构，如果你觉得这样本身就方便加习惯的话。同时必须指出，别以为光first一下子整个transition的功夫就够了，看看人家里面的“承接”很注意的，一会儿一个“in fact”一会儿一个“it then stands”承上启下做得很到位，我们有些人的文章倒好，几个干巴巴的firstly secondly thirdly往那里一扔，剩下什么都没有了——老是同一个毛病，形式的东西学得挺快，实质的东西半天也没长进，自己也不多琢磨琢磨。第二，pp3说明文件里面也说过，例如写几段怎么展开完全为自己文章服务，人家是“experienced reader透过各种各样的题材看你的内容”，就我的经验而言这样子少见的“顺序”都拿到6分的话，大可放心不要成天在乎形式上的东西，把你文章核心的“内容”，你的“分析”做到位，最基本的顺承布局做到（这可不是说顺承布局的“形式”），分就有了。

同时这篇文章和其他6分范文的共同特点：简洁明了，实例清晰有力。后者进一步证实我的看法，即一定要会用这种“具体”“实例”来说明问题，要不然文章永远是干巴巴喊口号纸上谈兵逻辑碰逻辑。

这篇文章是怎么拿到6分的，其实还真有一番滋味值得琢磨。

imongUID: 140258

一篇典型的6分argument范文

Sample Topic:

The following appeared in a popular health and fitness magazine.

“A ten-year study of a group of 552 men from Elysia showed that long-term consumption of caffeinated black tea was associated with a much lower risk of stroke. Of these men, those who drank more than three cups of black tea a day had a 70 percent lower risk of stroke than those who drank no tea. These results suggest that health-conscious people should consume at least three cups of black tea a day, beginning early in life.”

首先看看官方给出来的一些提示：
Strategies for this topic

This argument cites the results of a ten-year study of men from Elysia to draw a very broad and general conclusion that all “health-conscious people” should drink at least three cups of black tea a day, beginning at an early age.

In developing your analysis of the argument, you should ask yourself whether the study results actually support the general conclusion. In particular, you might want to consider such questions as the following:

l        Is the observed association between tea drinking and reduced stroke risk necessarily a causal relationship, as the argument assumes?
l        Could there be other factors, such as diet and/or exercise that might account for the observed reduction in stroke risk?
l        Were the men in the study at high risk of having a stroke to begin with?
l        Had the men in the study drunk three cups of caffeinated black tea a day, beginning early in life?
l        Would the results of a day of men from Elysia be necessarily applicable to a wider population ------ that is, to women and to people who are not from Elysia?
l        Is a ten-year study of this kind long enough to yield an accurate measure of the reduction in stroke risk?
l        Would drinking one or two cups of caffeinated black tea a day have the same presumed benefit as drinking three cups of the tea a day?
l        Are there other health risks associated with drinking three cups of caffeinated black tea, especially for the young?

Considering possible answers to questions such as these will help you identify several weakness in the argument’s line of reasoning. You can then develop each of these points in your critique of the argument.

可以看出实际上一个题目的设定是可以“漏洞百出”的，远不是那么容易就给写exhausive了，如果自己能独立提出这些问题，你的argument就不会千人一面，而你的展开和思考就体现自己独特的一面。下面看文章：


Essay Response – Score 6

Before prescribing large quantities of black tea to the general population, the evidence given in the argument should be examined from several other angles. 看看人家的开头多漂亮！Before prescribing large quantities起手，一下子把场景给写活了。The researchers who conducted the Elysia study seem to have assumed that drinking three cups of black tea a day has preserved the health of some of the Elysian men without examining any other factors which may have affected the results of the study. 大家再复习一下所有的5分和6分官方argument范文的开头吧——其均有异曲同工之效，而尤以此篇为妙！

这里的without examing…..指出“漏掉一些factor”应该说是作为thesis领开了全文。注意这里without的用法其实很巧妙，和中文不太一样——大家要逐渐熟悉学会类似的表达法。写英文很多时候语序等方面和中文满拧的，在此不多谈语言方面，继续看文章：

First of all, for an experiment to be accurate, it must be controlled, with a balance between the experimental and the control groups. 提出TS：这一段主要讨论experiment control的问题了：In the above study, though, we know nothing about the ages, backgrounds, and general health of the men involved.好好看仔细了什么叫“具体”“实例” We also do not know if the tea drinkers were of the same age, background, and general health as those who did not drink tea. Further, if the tea drinking men in the study were all quite young when the study began, they might only be 35 years old today and thus be at small risk of stroke just because of their age.一个35加上just because of their age很具体——立刻就到位了。 The same is true of their general health.再继续分析，不放过： If they exercised regularly, ate healthily and never smoked, then their decreased risk of stroke might have nothing to do with consumption of black tea and might simply be an indication of a healthy lifestyle.

看看这段用到的这些词：age, background, general health, 35, young, exercise regularly, ate healthily, smoke, lifestyle。现在各位有没有一点，至少是感性的认识了？希望各位写argument的时候不要掉书袋，一幅理论高深的样子跟那里“false analogy”甚至“red herring”都跑出来，会把人家吓得严重汗的，自己装装傻，childish一点，跟那里“装模作样”的一五一十提出大大小小“实际”的反驳意见——这才是有用的。Analytical Writing——不管立论还是驳论，就是要跟人家说明why，而且是Specifically discuss why，要不然你的critical thinking去哪里体现？？

也看看承接词：also，further，the same is true…很漂亮的衔接。这个段落超级缜密，无懈可击。

We might also ask: How do the two groups of men break down in terms of ethnicity? Do all the men in one group belong to one ethnic group and all the men in the other belong to a different ethnic group? Perhaps the tea drinkers are from an ethnic group whose members have a low risk for stroke as compared with the ethnic group of those who drank no tea. If this were the case, the study’s results would be questionable, at best. 跟上面的本质上都是一样的：variable。这一点在后面的commentary里面也提到了。可以观察一下这个段落的“微格”结构。

Another element to consider is this: perhaps the group who have a higher risk of stroke have this higher risk not because they abstain from drinking tea but because they are heavy smokers, or are grossly overweight, or because they are all in their 70s and 80s and are in poor health and have circulatory problems. We just don’t know. 可谓把“实例”发挥到极致了，有了前面的部分到这里那些if…的话也不用说了，直接列出来，立刻就说明问题。

到此为止都还是一个variable与control的问题。而如果就此结束只是找到一个major flaw——显然不可以。人家还有那么明显的major flaw，不说可就意味着没发现呀：

Furthermore, even if Elysian tea in certain amounts is beneficial to men, what about women?没得说，一看起手句就明白下面要讨论什么了。其实可以注意一下这篇文章的每段起手句：都不是我们这边常见的“概括了全段”的那种死板写法。起到了引出段落确定讨论范围的效果完全足够，起手句的写法才没那么死板： The argument says nothing about tea’s effect on women, so it therefore cannot make the recommendation that all people should drink the tea.实际上这一句才是本段的Topic sentence……看出来了吗？谁都没规定过必须第一句就是TS，真正的行文是很灵活的。 Perhaps there is something in the tea which would adversely affect women. 关键还是“实例”展开。我们有不少argument到了刚才上面一句写完之后要不然就没辙了，要不然就来个if so, then…又返回去说车轱辘话，就是想不到再往这里“深入”！ Perhaps there is something in the tea which, when drunk in prescribed amounts, will adversely affect a woman’s ability to bear healthy children.步步深入，更具体了。 The point is, a generalization about women cannot be made from studies done on men; studies done exclusively on men on the risk of heart attack have taught us that much. 返回论点，继续强调。 In addition, the argument fails to rule out possible side-effects that might make tea drinking inadvisable for some people.最后稍微再带一下，把整段实质上关于“人群”的讨论给做了收尾。

What if we consider some important terminology in the argument? 要开始质疑“偷换概念” For example, what does “long term” mean? In the ten years of the study, does “long term” mean all ten years? Or does it mean several months at a time over a period of X number of years? 到底long term和10年是不是同一指代 And what does “lower risk of stroke” mean? Does it mean that the tea-drinking men will still probably suffer strokes, but not until their later years? Or that they absolutely will not have a stroke, no matter what? The problem is that key terms in the argument are too vague to be meaningful. 这里使用了连续问句作为展开的手段。Claria那篇6分范文里面也使用过连续问句作为一个段落并受到了肯定的评价。但是奇怪的是我看到我们这里的argument文章用起问句的时候却经常是和范文效果大相径庭。我想问题的核心可能在于我们有些argument里那些“问”问的是太不着调。像上面这一段是3+3六个问句，每个3里面，后面两个问句都实质上给出了作者的“答案”。Claria那篇文章更是每个单独的问句都暗指作者想要表述的“答案”。可是我们这里有些argument问题问完了“答案”谁都不知道——看的人也一样，写的人也一样。写的人提出一个问题然后自己不回答，再加上后面一起弄得看的人一头雾水，怎么能有好效果？包括反问、设问等等，人家范文里面用得很好，我们如果只学了形式没学会实质，用出来之后自然只能让别人看着诡异。

In conclusion, any legitimate experiment must be strictly controlled and include a broad cross-section of the population. The Elysian study fails to do that.
简单明了。 The Elysian study fails to do that. 一锤子就砸下来了。结尾和开头同样精彩。

看看ETS的commentary：


Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6

This cogent and well-articulated response presents an insightful analysis of three central problems in the argument:
l        Apparent absence of necessary controls in the study of Elysian men (e.g., the study failed to consider variables such as subjects’ age, diet, and general health, and did not necessarily have balanced experimental and control groups)
l        Unwarranted generalization (e.g., from Elysian men to Elysian women and children)
l        Use of vague terminology (e.g., “long-term” and “lower risk”)

实际上，我认为文章整体组织顺序只要做到“有一定顺序”也就可以了。上一篇非典型范文中的层层让步，这篇中的彼此独立，都算常见。在比较过全部官方范文后，到底各个段落的顺序如何安排，没观察到同样的趋势，不同文章各显其能的。因此我认为，只要你的安排“有顺序”，并且做到了“smooth transition”，这方面就完全okay，不会出问题的。

Development of each of these points is both thorough and cogent. The writer asks effective rhetorical questions（语言技巧也帮了忙） and provides specific examples of the kinds of details that are missing from the argument. In addition, overall organization is exceptionally clear, and transitions both between and within paragraphs are smooth. Throughout the response, the writer clearly establishes logical connections with the use of phrases such as “Another element to consider,” and “The same is true.”

The writing is generally free of errors. Indeed, sentences are typically gracefully constructed with careful embedding and subordination that suit the complexity of the writer’s analysis.

In summary, this response is outstanding; it offers a compelling critique of the argument’s flaws and conveys meaning skillfully.

最后，如果还对Argument的写作不明白的话，就去看ETS的6分、5分档argument官方范文，自己去多分析琢磨一下！

poohUID: 146994

刚看了imong研究的，已经很深入了，我想补充一点（不知道说得对不对啦），就是一定要分清前提和论点论据，有的人虽然每个驳论点都展开的很充分却不知道自己做了无用功，那就是去驳人家的前提，没有抓住重点。这种情况对于新手比较常见。给大家提个醒了

imongUID: 140258

举个例子？嘿嘿。

Nice to see you back呢。:)

JonsoncaoUID: 161915

第一篇文章真的是简洁有力啊…………

zhangbaokeUID: 158124

imong,这两篇文章真是堪称经典，
另外关于你说的：“
一篇是评pooh的文章并谈关于argument的开头，另一篇是关于argument论证深入的实验”
能不能给个链接啊

poohUID: 146994

例文：from testmagic:

45.The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."



The above argument is relatively sound; however, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting the author's claim, as discussed below.

Firstly, the argument is based on the assumption that arctic deer, in search of food, meanders from island to island. However, no evidence has been cited to substantiate this assumption. Lacking this, it is entirely possible that the arctic deer look for its food in a single island. And if this holds true, the editorial becomes unwarranted.

Secondly, even if deer move from one island to another island, the author claims that there is a decline in the deer population on the basis of reports documented by hunters. However, in the journal no evidence has been provided about the accuracy of local hunters report. Perhaps the hunters came to such a conclusion on the basis of their observation only. Without considering the tools used by local hunters for making the report, it cannot be inferred that there is an actual decrease in Arctic deer species.

Even if it is assumed that the deer population is dwindling, the argument further relies on an additional assumption that this decline is owing to global warming. Perhaps there is a scarcity of vegetation on which the deer survives. Or perhaps the spree hunting by local hunters is the actual cause behind this decline. Without ruling out these possible explanations for the decrease of deer species, the author cannot justify the conclusion that global warming is the factor responsible for this.

Finally, the author asserts that deer fails in following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea because of the melting of sea. Yet, no evidence has been provided to justify the author's assertion. For that case, perhaps the deer develop a liking for the new environment and they don't basically migrate back.

In sum, to make this argument persuasive, the author needs to provide clear evidence that the migration of deer take place. The author must also show that local hunter report is accurate, and the other possible factor responsible for the decline in Arctic deer population.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
评判：by Erin Billy

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bubble

The above argument is relatively sound; however, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting the author's claim, as discussed I will discuss below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The argument is either sound or it is not; your intro slightly contradicts itself and therefore makes a bad first impression.





quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bubble



Firstly, the argument is based on the assumption that arctic deer, in search of food, meanders from island to island. However, no evidence has been cited to substantiate this assumption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No, this is incorrect. Look at the essay prompt:   





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



     The word "meander" is used somewhat incorrectly, and is awkward here. BTW, "deer" here is plural.  





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bubble

Lacking this, it is entirely possible that the arctic deer look for its food in a single island. And if this holds true, the editorial becomes unwarranted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   See above.   






quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bubble

Secondly, even if deer move from one island to another island, the author claims that there is a decline in the deer population on the basis of reports documented by hunters. However, in the journal no evidence has been provided about the accuracy of local hunters report. Perhaps the hunters came to such a conclusion on the basis of their observation only. Without considering the tools used by local hunters for making the report, it cannot be inferred that there is an actual decrease in Arctic deer species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   [B]  注意：这一点就是我想强调的： Yes, this is possible, but usually ETS wants us to accept that the presented info is true; in other words, it's best to assume the information is reliable unless of course the reported information could be faulted in the way it was gathered.  [/B]   





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bubble



Even if it is assumed that the deer population is dwindling, the argument further relies on an additional assumption that this decline is owing to global warming. Perhaps there is a scarcity of vegetation on which the deer survives. Or perhaps the spree hunting by local hunters is the actual cause behind this decline. Without ruling out these possible explanations for the decrease of deer species, the author cannot justify the conclusion that global warming is the factor responsible for this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IMO, this is the major flaw of the argument; you should expand on this..  





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bubble

Finally, the author asserts that deer fails in following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea because of the melting of sea. Yet, no evidence has been provided to justify the author's assertion. For that case, perhaps the deer develop a liking for the new environment and they don't basically migrate back..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    注意了！！！
Again, the prompt says that the sea ice has melted, so we can assume for our essay that this has really happened.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bubble



In sum, to make this argument persuasive, the author needs to provide clear evidence that the migration of deer take place. The author must also show that local hunter report is accurate, and the other possible factor responsible for the decline in Arctic deer population.


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

   Score: 4.0/6.0

Priyanka,

You write very well, and have good grammar, spelling, and formatting, and obviously have a good grasp of logic and argumentation. The problem seems to be that you are a bit confused about what GRE is looking for.

If you corrected the problems I noted above, you'd likely get a 5.0 or better.

   

apolloxpUID: 156355

都在 ARGUMENT综合参考区。不难找的

DendisUID: 158017

感谢imong啊，绝对经典！！！

imongUID: 140258

谢谢pooh。

另：我把帖子合并进来了。:)

yundongtuUID: 164437

IMONG的分析真是太到位了，我只有顶一下了。
我很赞同你的看法。
这样的文章要在给定的时间内完成，我想只有经常按照这样的思维练习才能做得到吧。ANYWAY，THANKS FOR YOUR EXCELLENT WORK!

11yaoyaoUID: 177037

还是最喜欢这个，很有参考价值