8月30-31日 issue第8类同主题写作暨argument模考 （8月最后一期）

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

从8月8日开始2天一练，能坚持到这个时候的同学都是好样的。GRE作文也许练了很久分数也并不理想，或许这便是生活，努力很久却未必能得到想要的结果。希望大家在这个过程中能有收获，这样努力也是有意义的。就好像我搞这个活动一开始也没有想到会有什么回报，但是在这个过程中，我还是找到了一些同学们常出现的问题，制作视频的经验也丰富了不少，同时还找到了更好的同主题写作活动方案。

当年我在华科义务指导学生GRE作文和留学文书的时候也没有想到若干年后我会以文书为题材写研究计划申请到香港的博士；并在寄托收集数据写成GRE作文的博士论文。所以说，很多事情只要本身有意义就应该坚持去做，而回报可能会在你想不到的时候以你预计不到的方式发生。

9月我们会重点做文书写作的活动，10月我打算重新开始同主题写作活动，改为周练或旬练，加入托福写作，希望能探索出一条可持续发展的道路。对于今后的活动欢迎大家提出建议和意见。

另外，9月的文书写作活动，寄托会从本次活动全勤的同学中抽取博士申请人和硕士申请人各3位由我指导文书写作；而本次活动的各小组长的留学文书，我都会给出书面修改意见。同时，希望参加本次活动的同学，考完后能在这里回忆真题，拿到分数后若达到4.0分或以上欢迎在我的博客下留言分享经验。

8)     Curriculum design (6<14, 96, 116>,  13<46, 70, 102, 112, 140>,  142, 40<47, 90>,  54, 82<97, 100, 124>))

8月30日和31日的任务是选取上面的其中一道题写提纲。或者也可以做一次argument模考。题目还是回复可见。

游客，如果您要查看本帖隐藏内容请回复

规则同前两天一样，先回帖看题，然后30分钟内回复自己的回帖。在做模考之前，我建议大家先回顾一下我之前几次关于argument的视频，以及针对argument的一些点评。我在批阅时会重点关注
1. 开头段有没有概括原论证
2. 主旨句有没有按照写作指引概括后面的中间段
3. 中间段的主题句有没有按照写作要求概括中间段内容
4. 中间段所探讨的其他可能性是否靠谱  


再次感谢寄托版友对本次活动的支持，感谢寄托管理员团队（Jack & 潞）及各小组长的组织和管理。相信下次活动会办得更好！也祝愿所有的G友都能飞越成功！

东扯扯UID: 3763369

写作

东扯扯UID: 3763369

东扯扯 发表于 2017-8-30 08:59
写作

According to the argument, it is recommended that the work shifts if Butler Manufacturing shoud be shorten by one hour, since this change can decrease the on-job accidents by guaranteeing the rest time of workers, which can be refected from the case of Panoply Industries. However, in order to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendation, some questions need to be answered for offering more information. Questions about the reasons accounting for the accidents in Butler, the significance of comparison between these two factories, other measures Panoply Industries taken are important evaluate whether this recommendation works or not.

这段的基本动作已经比较像样了  句子层面的问题不少 我标红了  你可以在下面修改一下 不要改原文  



To begin with, what reasons accounting for the job-accidents in Butler Manufacturing play a significant role in the evaluation(?). Although it is reported that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are important contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents, whether Butler belongs to this list (RP) depends on its feature (MI). If tasks in Butler is influenced by many factors or even do not be affected by rest time, the change of work shifts based on the recommendation may not successfully decrease the on-job accidents. For example, if the major reason accounting for the higher accidents rate is due to bad training for its worker rather than the rest time, this recommendation in such case is useless.
感觉语言表达方面的问题还是比较大  

In additions to what are actual reasons resulting in the sfety issue, whether the comparison between these two factories is significant or not need to be answered. Given that the argument recommend to shorten time of work shifts based on the case of Panoply, in order to validate the effectiveness, the comparison need to be questioned. For example, if tasks worker do are totally different between Butler and Panoply, such recommendation that mimics the measure Panoply did may not work. To be more specific, if tasks in Panoply require workers highly concentrate on, while those in Butler are relaxing relatively and ask less attention to pay, more rest time is useful to improve the safety in Panoly but in Butler.

Even the comparion is valid due to similar tasks of these to factories, what other measures undertaken in Panoply need to be considered for the evaluation of the recommendation. That is to say, the higher safety level of panoply may not only lie in short work shifts. Maybe its  workers receive more safety training so that they rasie the awareness and improve the working skills. In such case, only shorten the work shifts may not have a significantly positive result. In other word, if other measures also taken by Panoply, Butler is not necessarily improve the safety record as prediction just based on the work shifts adjustment.

In conclusion, given than detailed information in the argument is limited, more question mentioned above should be answered for a comprehensive understanding about this case and so that whether this recommendation is likely to have the positive results as predicted can be better evaluated.


由于答题框限制，需要一直返回去看题，浪费了一点时间，所以超出2min。

芥弥UID: 3802147

Model Test

AngelyyyUID: 3625119

模考看题

MargueritexyUID: 3788684

加油！

芥弥UID: 3802147

芥弥 发表于 2017-8-30 09:34
Model Test

In the memo, it is argued that in order to reduce the rate of on-the-job accidents, the plant has to shorten the work shifts by one hour. This conclusion is arrived by referring to the increase of the rate of accidents in Butler, the measures of the nearby plant, and a recent government study. Several questions are arised from this argument and its reasoning process. We have to investigate this matter thoroughly in order to answer these questions before we could evaluate the soundness of this argument.

To begin with, we have to ask the question whether shorter working time is the main reason why Butler had more on-the-job accidents. It is true that shorter work shifts would be an important part regarding working quality. However, it is important to bear in mind that there might  be other factors which could be equally essential in terms of fewer accidents. Perhaps, it is because workers' salary could not support their family that a large majority of them have to work on a part-time job in their spare time, thus leading to the decrease of working quality. Or perhaps, the design of the work shifts may have some problems such as  fewer intervals during the work shifts despite the high intensity of work. Thus, if these are the main reasons contributing to the gap in the number of accidents, the recommendation would not be helpful to close the gap.

Another question is that whether the Butler workers would have more sleep simply by shortening the shifts. It is possible that some workers would have the habit of staying up late or pulling an all-nighter in order to complete the working tasks. Or perhaps, because of the low salary in Butler, they have to work an extra hours in order to earn enough money to support the family. Without taking these factors into consideration, it is far from reasonable to conclude that simply the shortening of working time would guarantee enough sleep of workers.

Then we need to ask the question whether enough sleep could necessarily reduce the number of accidents. Even if this recommended measures would help workers have more sleep, this may not be helpful for reducing the number of accidents since many other factors function as well. For example, workers may not receive enough security training or may not be equipped with security tools when working. Perhaps, the supervisors could not enforce the rules and regulation according to the safety protocols. Or the machinery needs upgrading in order to guarantee the safety of workers. On this score, if the assumption that addressing sleep deprivation would reduce accidents does not hold, the recommendation should not be accepted.

Finally, we have to ask the question whether the same measure which worked well in Panoply Industries would reach the same effect in Butler Manufacturing as well. Maybe there are some huge differences between Panoply Industries and Butler Manufacture so that even if this policy would be effective in the former, it might not have the same result in the latter. For example, it is likely that Panoply Industries excels at producing textiles, wile Quiot Manufacturing is mainly responsible for producing automobiles. On this account, less time-span in Panoply Industries may help workers relax while in Quiot Manufacutring this measure would influence the supervision of streamline process, therefore decreasing productivity.Unless there is more information to prove that the working condition and other factors in two places are basically similiar, it is pointless to assume that the same measure would reach the same effect in Quiot Manufacturing.

Generally speaking, the argument is not very strong in its current form. In order to support this argument, many questions discussed above still need to be answered in order to decide whether follow the measures of Panoply Industries would be a desirable move for Butler Manufacturing.

MargueritexyUID: 3788684

Margueritexy 发表于 2017-8-30 09:48
加油！

In this argument, the Board of Directors of Butler Manufacturing recommends that they should shorten every work shift by an hour to make workers have a enough rest which help workers reduce risky accidents. Although it's a good idea for workers safety, but there are some questions and details needing asking. The reasons are as follows.
In the first place, the report indicates that 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, whose work shifts are one hour shorter than the former. It seems like it's the reason why the accidents frequency in Butler is higher. However, 30 percent is a relative indicator so it cannot represent the level of severity of accidents. If workers in Butler are much fewer than that of Panoply, the number of accidents in Butler may be smaller than that of Panoply. This indicator is not strong enough to support the conclusion of the report.
Secondly, the recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep deprivation are significant factors in many on-the-job accidents so the administer of Butler draws the conclusion that shortening the work shifts can help workers rest fulltime and then reduce the frequency of accidents. It sounds feasible, but is that the main reason why workers in Butler suffering from accidents more than another? Absolutely there is no evidence according to the argument. It is possible that workers have accidents because of their incorrect operation of machinery, not following the rules of work and so on. Thus it is not convinced that longer work shift is the main factors causing the high frequency of accidents in Butler.
The last but not the least important, the administer predicts that shorter shifts will allow Butler to improve its safety record by ensuring that its employees are adequately rested. This prediction is not supported because workers may not spend all those rest hours sleeping. They may play outside or have some activities which cost their more efforts. If the company wants to ensure the adequate rest of workers, they need to make more surveys and evidence to convince it.
In conclusion, this recommendation is good for workers, but whether it can improve safety record needs further evidence to support. To make a better conclusion, the administer in Butler should take every consideration above into account and search for more persuasive and reasoning data and evidence.

AngelyyyUID: 3625119

Angelyyy 发表于 2017-8-30 09:47
模考看题

106.The following appeared in a memo from the Board of Directors of Butler Manufacturing.

During the past year, workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. A recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. Therefore, we recommend that Butler Manufacturing shorten each of its work shifts by one hour. Shorter shifts will allow Butler to improve its safety record by ensuring that its employees are adequately rested.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.


According to the memo from the Board of Directors of Butler Manufacturing, they recommend that Butler Manufacturing shorten each of its work shifts by one hour to improve its safety record by ensuring its employees are adequately rested. And the memo documented several facts to support the claim. While there are some questions need to be answered, otherwise, the validation of the recommendation would be undermined, and I will explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

To begin with, the memo made the assumption that shorten the work shifts by an hour in Panoply could ensure the workers’ rest time. The memo cited during the past year, there are 30 percent more on-the-job accidents in Butler Manufacturing than workers at nearby Panoply industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. It seems reasonable. However, the memo need to answer the questions before we accept it. First, Whether the total work shifts time are the same in two industries? Possibility could be the rest time is already more in Butler than Panoply. For example, there are 3 hours rest time in Butler while 2 hours in Panoply. Therefore, the one hour shorter in work shift time can’t be the evidence to support the claim that there is more rest time in Panoply.   

Second, whether those on-the-job accidents in Butler is due to the more hours on work shifts? The memo also cited that recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. The assumption made by memo could be that the reason led to the on-the-job accidents in Butler is the fatigue and sleep privation. However, whether the directors investigate the reason of the accidents? For instance, the accidents taken place on the time when they shifted the job, but the calculating method take the accident account into on-the-job accidents. The reason led to the accidents is more the carelessness than of fatigue and privation of sleep, so the validation of the assumption would be undermined.

Last but not the least, whether the format of other company suits for Butler? Whether it is appropriate to shorter one hour of work shifts time? The memo recommends that Butler Manufacturing shorten each of its work shifts by one hour and the shorter shifts will allow Butler to improve its safety record by ensuring that its employees are adequately rested. The recommend will be weaken if the situation that I mentioned existed. For example, the total time needed to ensure the adequate rest of employees in Butler is 3 hours, the rest time they have now is 1 hour, even though there is one more rest time, the employees still will be fatigue and tired, therefore, the safety record won’t be improved. However, the rest time is enough for workers in Panoply, and the possibility could be that the workers have been trained to adapt the work shift time. Thus, the directors need to do more surveys to solid their recommendation.

In conclusion, even it seems convincing to accept the recommendation, there are many questions need to be answered before we accepted it. What the total number of rest time in the two industries now? Whether the fatigue and privation of sleep is the reason led to the on-the-job accidents? Whether it is appropriate to use the Panoply format to improve the safety record in Butler? Only when the questions could be answered properly that we could reconsider whether to accept the recommendation.

HelloC424UID: 3815350

13 Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

In this competitive society, holding a college degree is no longer enough for us to compete with others for a good job or desirable career. Therefore, school may ask students to take a copious of courses outside their majors to broaden their horizons and have more advantages as competing with others. From my perspective, I agree that universities can give some elective courses for students to choose, while there are some shortcomings if universities ask every student should take courses outside their fields of study.
Opening courses outside majors can introduce different perspectives and methods from other courses to students.  
eg: for anthropology and journalism   field trip    convoluted topic about a remote village which is far away from the modern world, the natives there may regard as enemy and attack. broaden horizons   看到战争 不会随意归结为某一因素，
those major in physics or chemistry  -learning history  similar cases that will more objectively analyze the reasons and profits.
Similarly， study in arts could study not only how to use the brushes to draw but also could learn some knowledge about the ratio of human body or how human's muscle works to improve the  realness of drawing

However, there might be some limits for both universities and the students if do so.
On the one hand, universities may be unable to launch a large number of courses for lacking of ample teachers and money.
On the other hand, for students who are too busy to learn other courses outside the major courses may lead to a tragedy that she cannot deal with those classes and fail in his or her major courses.

In my opinion, university or college can encourage students       freshman year and sophomore year and focus on the majors and make good preparations for their graduation and career.

Gus_guoUID: 3655828

支持

东扯扯UID: 3763369

芥弥 发表于 2017-8-30 09:56
In the memo, it is argued that in order to reduce the rate of on-the-job accidents, the plant ha ...

貌似也没有统一的批改格式，我就按自己看法直接发表意见了。

1. 按照Simon的要求来看，开头段没有写outline statement，即概括后面的中间段内容。其实我个人觉得开头段这样写问题不大，作者可以自行斟酌。自己写的时候也是写到need to answer some quetions就觉得差不多，但还是强行补上outline statement，感觉没有很自然，大概是我处理的不大好。
2. 第一个主体段的中心句说反了吧？应该是longer time accounting for more accidents. 作为中心句还是要格外注意，即使读者能知道应该是typo。
3. 第二个主体段里用到要兼职的例子和上一段重复了，不知道行不行，我平常写的时候也有这个疑惑，个人觉得问题不大，只要是针对各自的中心句的话。
4.  作者提了4个问题。对此，我有一点还不是很确定的是，是不是提的点越全面越好，我想的时候也能想到不止三个点，但目前还都是挑选其中三个点来写，还没尝试写更多的点。理论上来说，应该是写的越全面体现出考虑越周到，逻辑越缜密，更好才对。不知道作者怎么看?

总体上而言，我觉得这篇明确回应题目要求，架构清晰，论点合理，逻辑成立，语言方面也较为流畅自然。特别是拼写和语法我觉得做的很好，相比之下，我在限时的情况下我打字较慢，容易打错和返打，这点我做的很不好，向作者看齐。

JackitUID: 3394331

加油！

liwenhao19UID: 3472930

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

liwenhao19UID: 3472930

The Board of Directors of Butler(B) recommended that their company should follow Panoply(P)'s practice to shorten their shift by one hour in order to improve the save record in B since P reported 30 less on the job accidents and a recent government study list fatigue and sleep deprivation as significant contributor of on the job accidents. However, in order to decide whether the facts the Board mentioned are enough to support their suggestion, we need answers to questions about the relative employment size of the two companies, the design of the government study and living habits of employees in B. For example, if B operates in light industries like cloth making, while the study only collects samples from heavy industries like steel making, the results of the study may have little relevance for B, since the basic drive of on the job accidents can be very different between light industries and heavy industries. In order to improve safety record, the Board of B may need to consult studies that focus on the exact industry as B are currently involved.


Firstly, we need  to ask what is the relative employment size of the two companies, without answers to this question, the simple facts that P reported 30% less on the job accidents can even not support the claim that P has better safety record than B. For example, B has reported 13 on the job accidents while there were 10 on the job accidents in P, thus B reported 30% more on the job accidents. However, if B has 1000 employees while P has only 20 employees, this numbers actually indicate that half of the employees in P were injured while only 1.3% of employees in B have accidents thus actually B has much better safety record than P, as a result, it makes little sense to follow P's practice.

In additions, we need to know details about the design of the study in order to decide whether the results of the study have relevance for B. For example, maybe B mainly operate in light industries like cloth making while the sample only collect data from heavy industries like steel making. If this were the case, the study can have little relevance for B, since the basic drive for on the job accidents can be very different between light industries and heavy industries. To improve the safety record, Board of B needs to consult studies that focus more on the exact industries that B currently involved.

The third question we need answers before evaluation of the suggestion is about the living habits of employees in B.  In making the suggestion of shortening the shift, the board made the implicit assumption that those workers would use those extra to get more sleep, however, this is not necessarily the case. As we know people all have their own living habits and this is not going to change suddenly. If, for example, if most employees used to go to local bars after work and stay till midnight, even if the board shorten the shift by one hour, it is not likely that those workers would go to bed early and have enough sleep, they may well remain their habits of stay in local bars until mid night. Without those detail information about the living habit s of employees in B, it is hard to know whether the suggestion is likely to have the predicted effects.

In sum, in order to evaluate the argument, we need to answer various questions about the relative employment size of the two companies, the design of the government studies and the living habits of B's employees. Before answering those questions, it is hard to tell whether the argument is valid or not.