argument36 @_@

jorgeUID: 108878

36 The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.

"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."

In this argument, the arguer states that the Dr. Conclusion is mistake and so does his or her observation-centered approach, later, the arguer shows that people should choose his or her interviews-centered method. In my point of view, the argument rests on several improper aspects of reasoning.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of cause of over-simplification. In this statement, the arguer mentions that the children living in the several islands including Tertia always talk about their parents so the arguer concludes that the D’s observation is false that these children are not reared by their biological parents. However, does children always talk about their parents means that they are raised by their parents? It might be that these children are raised by other adults so that they miss their parents and wish to see their parents so much; hence, they often talk about their parents. It is also possible that just because these children are raised by other adults not by there biological parents, these adults ask them to talk about their parents frequently for the sake that they will not lose the close relationship between children and parents.

In the second place, the arguer makes a generalization that for the reason Dr.’s observation about Teria is mistake, admitted that the observation is somewhat inaccurate, but there is no evidence shows that the observation-centered approach by Dr. is false. The observation is only one factor of the approach by Dr, and people could not draw a conclusion that the approach is false so simple just because of one mistake aspect. It is possible that if Dr. adjust the observation such as observing selected individual families to watch whether their children are raised by entire village or observing the leaders of the village to see whether this phenomenon is true, the observation-centered approach will be effective.

What is more, the arguer makes such assumption because he or she thinks that using the interview-centered method will get the accurate understanding. However, the arguer provides no evidence to prove his or her method. People even only know little about this method. Does people should and have to use this interview-centered method? What about if the some people propose the picture-centered method to picture all the life of these children or record-centered method to record the life of these children using the video cameras? And these methods also could contribute to a good understanding of the child-rearing traditions.

To sum up, to make the argument more convincing, the arguer should present more evidences to assure people that the arguer’s approach is the proper one. Without such appropriate evidences, people would rather like to choose the observation-centered approach.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

兔子发作文
嘿嘿
头一次见到
占一个

鬼谷子UID: 159645

No.1 Argument 36, @_@ 【        兔子啊兔子，你发贴的格式首先就错了啊，正确的格式是argument36 ×××××】               
36 The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.

"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."

In this argument, the arguer states that the Dr. Conclusion【结论博士？应该是Dr. Field’s conclusion】 is mistake and so does his or her 【是his，题目里面明确的提出了】observation-centered approach, later, the arguer shows that people should choose his or her interviews-centered method. In my point of view, the argument rests on several improper aspects of reasoning. 【开头还算清楚明白】

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of cause of over-simplification. In this statement, the arguer mentions that the children living in the several islands including Tertia always talk about their parents so the arguer concludes that the D’s 【你真懒】observation is false that these children are not reared by their biological parents. 【这句应该放在is false前面，而且我觉得连续出现三次arguer有点重复，，可以说是base on 。。。。，the arguer concludes…】 However, does children always talk about their parents means that they are raised by their parents? It might be that these children are raised by other adults so that they miss their parents and wish to see their parents so much; hence, they often talk about their parents. It is also possible that just because these children are raised by other adults【用过一次了，可以换一下，比如 grown-ups 】not【but not会好一点】 by there【their！要仔细啊】 biological parents, these adults ask them to talk about their parents frequently for the sake that they will not lose the close relationship between children and parents. 【这个可能性就比较牵强了】

In the second place, the arguer makes a generalization that for the reason Dr.’s 【怎么每次都不写Field啊】observation about Teria is mistake, 【这里有问题了，应该说是observation-centered approach to studying cultures是错误的，而不是说仅仅对于这个村子的观察是错误的】 admitted that the observation is somewhat inaccurate, but there is no evidence shows that the observation-centered approach by Dr. 【。。。】 is false. The observation is only one factor of the approach by Dr, and people could not draw a conclusion that the approach is false so simple just because of one mistake aspect. 【首先我觉得应该是说，即使Dr. Field的研究结果错误，也不代表方法就是错误的。而且，这里最好列举一下，说明研究的过程中观察只是一个部分，可能有其他的ABCD因素影响研究的结果，所以不能因为结果错误就断定方法错误。】 It is possible that if Dr. adjust the observation such as observing selected individual families to watch whether their children are raised by entire village or observing the leaders of the village to see whether this phenomenon is true, the observation-centered approach will be effective. 【这里你是想说问题可能出现在其他方面吗？】

What is more, the arguer makes such assumption because he or she thinks that using the interview-centered method will get the accurate understanding. However, the arguer provides no evidence to prove his or her method. People even only know little about this method. 【这个结论是怎么来的呢？】 Does people should and have to use this interview-centered method? What about if the some people propose the picture-centered method to picture all the life of these children or record-centered method to record the life of these children using the video cameras? And these methods also could contribute to a good understanding of the child-rearing traditions. 【这样的论证不是很好，首先，你不能证明后面你说的这些方法是好方法，所以不能用它们去反驳作者的观点，我觉得还是应该着重说他没有给出足够的evidence证明这个方法是好的，反面的例子可以说，可能这个方法有更多的主观因素在里面影响研究结果的准确性，或者，可能这种研究方法会引起被研究对象的反感等等】

To sum up, to make the argument more convincing, the arguer should present more evidences to assure people that the arguer’s approach is the proper one. Without such appropriate evidences, people would rather like to choose the observation-centered approach. 【这里你只总结了一个方面，就是实验方法的选择，还应该总结他不能证明Dr. Field的结论错误】

【基本上是可以的，但是很多地方反驳还不够有力，还有就是注意逻辑顺序，加油啊兔子！】

jorgeUID: 108878

谢谢鬼鬼了. 实在是没时间准备, 也望多给偶提建议. 嘿嘿.

鬼鬼的分析确实非常有道理.

jorgeUID: 108878

还有,关于逻辑顺序的选择问题,该怎么个前后呢?

唉,没上过作文的班,感觉这方面有点弱啊.

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129670

鬼谷子UID: 159645

我觉得顺序的问题就是解决了前一个问题（比如说A）才能推导出下一个问题（比如说B）的话，那么就先写A后写B。依此类推的。

比如这篇文章，我觉得题目的顺序就应该是：前提是作者做了一些研究，然后用他研究的结果去否定前人的结论说明前人的结论是错误的，然后再进一步说明前人的研究方法都是错误的。

如果反驳的话，应该先反驳他的前提，就是他研究的结果，他没有给出足够的资料和证据说明他的结论就是准确的。

然后反驳他否定前人的结论，他没有给出足够的证据说明前人的结论错误，即使作者的结论正确，也可能因为时间等原因，当地的情况发生了变化，所以，前人的结论不一定错误。

最后反驳他否定前人实验方法，即使前人的结论错误了也不能说明他的方法错误，影响结论的有很多因素，而且没有证据表明作者的方法就是好的。

大概就是这样了。

poohUID: 146994

hoho
占座一定要看看

poohUID: 146994

兔子怎么想起来写作文了？嘿嘿，让我逮找了，烤着吃！以前你帮我改过作文，这回终于轮到我了！哈哈

36 The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.

"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."

In this argument, the arguer states that the Dr. Conclusion??? is mistake is mistake? mistake 只能作动词或名次 and so does his or her observation-centered approach, later, 用逗号连接两个句子？没有连词阿，或者用句号 the arguer shows that people should choose his or her interviews-centered method.  In my point of view, the argument rests on several improper aspects of reasoning. 最后一句虽然不错，但是不够明确。你并没有给出结论，到底这片argu有没有问题。我认为还是直接明了一点好

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of cause of over-simplification. In this statement, the arguer mentions that the children living in the several islands including Tertia always talk about their parents so the arguer concludes that the D’s observation is false that these children are not reared by their biological parents.这句没有问题，因为定于太长所以后置了，语法功力深厚！ However, does children always talk about their parents means that they are raised by their parents? It might be that these children are raised by other adults so that they miss their parents and wish to see their parents so much; hence, they often talk about their parents. It is also possible that just because these children are raised by other adults not by there biological parents, these adults ask them to talk about their parents frequently for the sake that they will not lose the close relationship between children and parents. 这个likelihood的确有些牵强缺少总结性的语句

In the second place, the arguer makes a generalization that for the reason Dr.’s observation about Teria is mistake, admitted that the observation is somewhat inaccurate, 这个定语从句怎么都看不太懂-_-! but there is no evidence shows that the observation-centered approach by Dr. is false. The observation is only one factor of the approach by Dr, and people could not draw a conclusion that the approach is false so simple just because of one mistake aspect.so simple在这里做什么成份，感觉语法有问题。one mistake aspect? mistake可以做形容词吗 It is possible that if Dr. adjust the observation such as observing selected individual families to watchwatch这个词不太合适吧，改成examine whether their children are raised by entire village or observing the leaders of the village to see whether this phenomenon is true, the observation-centered approach will be effective. 最后一句不明白到底想证明什么呢？可能Dr就是用的这种方法，而且这种方法可能就是失败的原因，既然是selected就可能不具有典型性

应该考虑其他导致错误结论的原因。比如样本问题等

What is more, the arguer makes such assumption because he or she thinks 可以去掉that using the interview-centered method will get 不要用get这样小词the accurate understanding. However, the arguer provides no evidence to prove his or her method. People even only know little about this method. Does people should and have to use this interview-centered method?这两句好像有点画蛇添足 What about if the some people propose the picture-centered method to picture all the life of these children or record-centered method to record the life of these children using the video cameras? 其他方法的运用，不能说明作者方法的错误And these methods also could contribute to a good understanding of the child-rearing traditions.这里你等于默认了作者方法的可行

To sum up, to make the argument more convincing, the arguer should present more evidences to assure people that the arguer’s approach is the proper one. Without such appropriate evidences, people would rather like to choose the observation-centered approach.
结尾同意小鬼的看法

整体感觉，depth不够，每个逻辑错误都只有一两个反例。我认为你想到的范例和其他可能性越多就越有说服力。还有body段每段最后最好有总结性的语句。body段的开头可以不必那么死板，不一定要明确说明是什么逻辑错误，可以直接指出具体的错误。语言不错，好多长句子阿，不过有些句子有些模糊，我不太理解。

不错不错啊，兔子，继续跳，嘿嘿

jorgeUID: 108878

mistake 不能做名词。 我错了。口语用惯了这个词。。唉。

fallacious 比较不错。呵呵。我最后一段反驳的好像是应该 即使他的错误的，也不一定选择interview-centered method. 似乎这样不好 ？

发现这么短时间，又得考虑，又得构思，又得有说服力。确实比较难。

Pooh, 在没熟悉题库的情况下，有什么好方法客服？ 我已经没时间看题库了。

mimifueUID: 135625

我有一个黄宇的argument的提纲，但不是电子版的
要是兔兔忙咱可以对着题说说

so猫UID: 148633

兔兔偶们同病相怜
要一起加油的说!!!

jorgeUID: 108878

最初由 mimifue 发布
[B]我有一个黄宇的argument的提纲，但不是电子版的
要是兔兔忙咱可以对着题说说 [/B]

兔兔估计脸对着题说说的时间都没了。 :(

jorgeUID: 108878

最初由 so猫 发布
[B]兔兔偶们同病相怜
要一起加油的说!!! [/B]

:D:D

好好。hug 下。

dragonflyljUID: 185331

emm...终于看懂你的in the second 那个长长的句子想表达的东西了。我想，像我下面这样写也许好些：
In the second place, the arguer makes a generalization that for the reason Dr.F's observation about Teria is mistaken, his observation-centered approach is invalid. Admitted that the observation is somewhat inaccurate, but there is no direct and clear evidence to draw such a hast generalization.
或者如果你想用一句的话。。。
In the second place, the arguer makes a generalization that for the reason Dr.F's observation about Teria is mistaken, his observation-centered approach is invalid, which there is no direct and clear evidence to draw hastily, admitted that the observation is somewhat inaccurate.