研究一篇范文后发现的问题！

向日葵的孩子UID: 162587

这篇argument的6分范文不知大家看过没？想问几个问题（见后）
“Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.  Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.  But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.  Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.”

The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned.  By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.

However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. 1. Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely.  It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. 2.In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas.  Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur.  It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area.  Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.

3.A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area.  It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period.  This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased.  However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads.  4.Again, the demographics of the population are important.  It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all.5.Are there more people in Forestville than there were six months ago?  If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. 6.Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.  Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.

Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety.  However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.

COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins by noting that the argument is "well presented."  It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis.  Alternatives mentioned are that
1-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
2-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might
   contribute to accidents;
3-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining
   that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
4-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
5-- population and auto density should be considered; and
6-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.

The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized critique.  Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation.  For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax.  The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique.  This is an impressive 6 paper.

以前看过一遍，今天分析时发现了新的问题：
commentary里的红字是评者归纳的本文的六个驳斥点。除了第3点是说“6个月的调查时间太短不能说明问题”以外，其余5点实际上都是在说：“应该考虑诸多其他因素来解释两地的差别”，就如commentary中所说“to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents”。 那么文章的结构就变得很奇怪了：按照在文中所标注的，4、5、6就不应该与3放在同一段里而应与1、2放在一起，文章的第三段的头句也不是该段的topic sentence了。
总之，我觉得本文的结构有点混乱。

jackey737UID: 149062

这个问题其实我也发现了。
我是在写AW193题时发现的：
193.The Department of Education in the state of Attra recommends that

high school students be assigned homework every day. Yet a recent

statewide survey of high school math and science teachers calls the

usefulness of daily homework into question. In the district of

Sanlee, 86 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three

to five times a week, whereas in the district of Marlee, less than 25

percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five

times a week. Yet the students in Marlee earn better grades overall

and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than

are the students in Sanlee. Therefore, all teachers in our high

schools should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all.

这一题我列了一3个错误，其中有两个错误如下：
1)the arguer fails to establish a causal relationgship between the  amount  of homework and students' performances.
2)Are the two areas, and the students od the two areas comparable?

其实两者如果都要论述的话，大家会发现论述的方法无非都是“列举它因法”。但其错误的实质（即原因）是不一样的。
就拿我这一题来说明吧：
错误1是说缺发因果联系；
错误2是说两者不可比较。
如果我们假设错误1是对的，即两者有必然的联系。那么如果按照楼主的想法（两个错误是相同的），错误2就也是对的。
其实不然，当作业量决定学生的综合成绩时，如果学生之间有个体差异（如，一个是专才，另一个是通才），那么两者也不具备可比性。
总之，两种错误的论证方式是一样的，并不表示他们的错误类型是一样的。
（在我看了XDF的教材后，发现有很多论证都是用的“列举它因法”。）

不知楼主明白没？？？

jackey737UID: 149062

我的那篇ARGUMENT 193 已经发出来了。
处女作！！！
大家捧捧场，给点“砖头”啊！！！

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=247223

poohUID: 146994

同意楼主的观点

我当初看范文的时候也觉得作者第三段的逻辑有些问题， 作为范文并不一定就是尽善尽美的，可能是徘徊于5分到6分之间。考虑到这篇文章讨论的比较thorough, 所以给了6分。就像并不是每篇6分作文都要求无错别字一样。

向日葵的孩子UID: 162587

2楼的意思应该是说：虽然都是它因法，但错误的实质不一样，所以应按照错误的实质来分段。对，我同意。
   但范文的关键问题是：认真研读第三段，4、5、6这三个分论点与3这个topic sentence并没有关系！！！

jalspeiUID: 154154

确实有楼主反映的问题
但是仔细看4 5 6和第四段似乎也有一点联系
先说6个月不够长，然后就说less people were driving on the road     Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements
后面提到“Again”，the demographics of the population are important，这一句似乎是下面的ts,然后就开始展开了
作者这样安排恐怕是也思维的跳跃所致

向日葵的孩子UID: 162587

第三段开头的TS其实只管到了AGAIN之前!~~
4,5,6又在说另外的了.
我发觉这种情况在其他多篇6分范文中都有出现.感觉我们不一定非要写成那种:某一段仅仅围绕开头的TS来写的手法(但其实我们大多数人是这样写的)

poohUID: 146994

我们不应该学习这篇范文里的逻辑，作为TS就应该是一段的中心，后面都应该围绕TC来写

naiba369UID: 131655

有时候，没必要抠的太细，毕竟我们的最后目的是考个高分，自己明白了就行了，别认死理