argument61 机井 请大家砸 有仇必报

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

------题目------
The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.
'Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years.'
-----正文--------
In this argument, the arguer claims that there is no reason for the schools in Eyleria  to spend any of the schools' budget on computer or other technology in the next few years. At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing, A careful examination of it. However, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument is based on the gratuitous assumption that the national average ratio of students to computer is very good as some educators indicate. It is no little evidence to prove this ratio is the most suitable rate for all the students. Granted that the average rate is good, there is still questionable to make the conclusion that it is suitable for Eyleria. Common sense tells us that the not all of the situations in every place are the same as the others. It is quite possible that Eyleria is a developed district, the students there need more computer education to fulfill their future needs, it is ridiculous to simply apply national rate to everywhere.

Secondly, even if the average national rate is also good for the district of Eyleria, it is too early to say that Eyleria’s are sufficient. The arguer commits an obvious logical err, that is our rate is lower other than higher than the average rate. Everyone knows that the more equipment we get, the more chances the student can use them. Even if our students' needs of computers can be met with the average rate, but actually, our number of computer is less than this, it is sure that out computer can not satisfy our students need for computers.

Finally, granted that our computer can fulfill our needs now. It is groundless to say it very still sufficient in the future. With the increase of students and the progress of technology, the need of computer must increase. The sufficient computer now would not satisfy the needs. At last, even if computer can fulfill students’ needs, it is ridiculous to assume that other technology is plentiful.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the rate in Eyleria is good rate for computer education there and all of the technology can meet the needs in the future.

zhengandhong135UID: 164542

In this argument, the arguer claims that there is no reason for the schools in Eyleria to spend any of the schools' budget on computer or other technology in the next few years. At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing, A careful examination of it. However, would reveal how groundless it is.最后两句是一句啊

Firstly, the argument is based on the gratuitous assumption that the national average ratio of students to computer is very good as some educators indicate. It isthereis no little evidence to prove this ratio is the most suitable rate for all the students. Granted that the average rate is good, there is still questionable to make the conclusion that it is suitable for Eyleria. Common sense tells us that the not all of the situations in every place are the same as the others. It is quite possible that Eyleria is a developed district, the students there need more computer education to fulfill their future needs, it is ridiculous to simply apply national rate to everywhere.

Secondly, even if the average national rate is also good for the district of Eyleria, it is too early to say that Eyleria’s are sufficient. The arguer commits an obvious logical err, that is our rate is lower other than higher than the average rate. Everyone knows that the more equipment we get, the more chances the student can use them. Even if our students' needs of computers can be met with the average rate, but actually, our number of computer is less than this, it is sure that out computer can not satisfy our students need for computers.

Finally, granted that our computer can fulfill our needs now. It is groundless to say it very still sufficient in the future. With the increase of students and the progress of technology, the need of computer must increase. The sufficient computer now would not satisfy the needs. At last, even if computer can fulfill students’ needs, it is ridiculous to assume that other technology is plentiful.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the rate in Eyleria is good rate for computer education there and all of the technology can meet the needs in the future.
文中有好几出语法错误自己该把
内容写的很从分啊
厉害

likeying27UID: 195699

In this argument, the arguer claims that there is no reason for the schools in Eyleria to spend any of the schools' budget on computer or other technology in the next few years.[中间最好还加点理由，不然和后面的连接不好，当然这样的摸板有点死板] At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing, A careful examination of it. However, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument is based on the gratuitous assumption that the national average ratio of students to computer is very good as some educators indicate. It is no little evidence to prove this ratio is the most suitable rate for all the students. [我觉得一端就说一个理由的好；你前面是educators的话不完全可信，后面是nation 和E不可比] Granted that the average rate is good, there is still questionable to make the conclusion that it is suitable for Eyleria. Common sense tells us that the not all of the situations in every place are the same as the others. It is quite possible that Eyleria is a developed district, the students there need more computer education to fulfill their future needs, it is ridiculous to simply apply national rate to everywhere.

Secondly, even if the average national rate is also good for the district of Eyleria, it is too early to say that Eyleria’s are sufficient. The arguer commits an obvious logical  [不是logical error ，这是算术错误，obvious error就好了] err, that[which] is our rate is lower other than higher than the average rate.[这样改好不好：which means our ratio of computers to students is under the national level] Everyone knows that the more equipment we get, the more chances the student can use them.[这话偏题了,改成:the arguer also fails to convince us why this lower ratio can also satisfy E’s students’ need和后面也好连一些] Even if our students' needs of computers can be met with the average rate, but actually, our number of computer is less than this, it is sure that out computer can not satisfy our students need for computers. [不是经常说不能quantity = quality 吗,呵呵,那我还说E用的少而精列,明白你的意思,可你好象没有表达清楚]


Finally, granted that [前面用国了,改even if,可以把你前面的这个换成if so, even though] our computer can fulfill our needs now. It is groundless to say it very still sufficient in the future. With the increase of students and the progress of technology, the need of computer must increase. The sufficient computer now would not satisfy the needs [in the future]. At last, even if computer can fulfill students’ needs, it is ridiculous to assume that other technology is plentiful.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the rate in Eyleria is good rate for computer education there and all of the technology can meet the needs in the future.  [结尾不错]


  PS:我觉得 “by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology”也有问题,就算电脑多了,也不等于毕业后他们的电脑水平就高呀,万一是当摆饰的列.
等我写了 啊狗 喊你改哦,呵呵,wait```