推荐一本好书（作文类）

fengboallanUID: 157405

www.dangdang.com有买

germansheperdUID: 195129

最初由 chenh1207 发布
[B]一点也不重合,
一本是中译本,侧重于对范文的具体分析,可以作练习写作之用;
而另一本是英文版,是从基础的写作方法和思路分析,我个人觉得看完受益匪浅. [/B]

I agree with you insofar as facts shall prevail over oratory.

Fact:Your remark that the two publications were entirely different was shaky and utterly misleading;

Fact:You presented your half-baked assessment of a book when you were not even halfway through it;

Fact:Some of your statements were premature and rash,which may well be indicative of inadequate analytical thinking skills and inane scholarship;

Fact:You tried,conciously or subconciously, to blur the distinction between conjecture plus speculation and balanced and well-founded reasoning;

Fact:I acknowledged the merit of that book in my previous post;

Fact:I wanted to tell other posters and the post-readers that I doubted the veracity of part of your observation;

Fact:Whether your recommendation was mercenary is tangential to this argument.

丛林勇士UID: 194686

那和<<北美GRE范文精讲>>比起来呢?   :)

chenh1207UID: 182826

I agree with you insofar as facts shall prevail over oratory.
（[[B]let me response these so-called facts as an gre argument essay[/B] . ）
Fact:Your remark that the two publications were entirely different was shaky and utterly misleading;
（[B]rebut :falling to define important terms “entirely different “.
This fact might rely on a certain term without providing an adequate definition of it .
What is the “entirely different “?what are the standards and criteria that you give your conclusion ?in your implications, what’s the same aspects in these two books ?）  [/B]  
Fact:You presented your half-baked assessment of a book when you were not even halfway through it;
（[B]rebut :relying on vague and ambiguous evidence
Your statement carries too vague to reasonably rely upon when it comes to drawing conclusions .is half-baked equated with halfway ?(maybe this can also be contribute to the fallacy that assume two courses of action mutually exclusive )）  [/B]  
Fact:Some of your statements were premature and rash,which may well be indicative of inadequate analytical thinking skills and inane scholarship;
（[B]rebut :engaging in circular reasoning or I call it “begging the question “
On its own line of reasoning to support your very reasoning ,could you really think you are eligible to cite the term “analytical thinking “,let alone quote the “inane scholarship “.）   [/B]  
Fact:You tried,conciously or subconciously, to blur the distinction between conjecture plus speculation and balanced and well-founded reasoning;
（[B]rebut :trapped in the rhetorical techniques to persuade the readers.
What’s your evidence ?is your evidence credible or sound ?what forces you to think like that ?）  [/B]  
Fact:I acknowledged the merit of that book in my previous post;
（[B]rebut :trivialize the merits and try to explain it away）[/B]   
Fact:I wanted to tell other posters and the post-readers that I doubted the veracity of part of your observation;
（[B]approved :you really have a heart of gold and I forget to appeal my recommendation to broader considerations.） [/B]   
Fact:Whether your recommendation was mercenary is tangential to this argument
（[B]All in all ,what I want to express is to clarify my motive and position to your posts. Look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.）[/B]

germansheperdUID: 195129

Your rebuttal is rife with circular reasoning and begs a zillion questions.Now the reasons I doubt your credibility are at least threefold.You buttressed my skepticism with your own writing.