机经题目argument61 我觉得挺难写的，有时间大家讨论一下

lunaticUID: 150745

---------------题目-----------------------
61The 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--------------------------
The claim about the school’s budget is based on the fact that the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12(K-12) is 1:5 and educators’ evaluation as well as the arguer’s assumption that the number of computers in Eyleria’s schools are sufficient. However, does the fact support the arguer’s assumption? May the students in Eyleria’s schools be proficient? Is it wise to spend no budget on computers or other technology?

Firs of all, the figure cited by the arguer about the average ratio of computers nationally cannot provide any powerful support to his conclusions. As is cited in the argument that the fact that average ratio is 1:5 means that across the country all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms, but educators do not tell us the bottom line about this ratio. Without this information, we have every reason to doubt that the ratio of computers to students 1:7 in Eyleria's K-12 schools may not measure up to the bottom line. After all, the difference between 1:5 and 1:7 is actually not small at all. As a result, I can hardly agree to the arguer's conclusion, which is based on a gratuitous assumption that all of Eyleria's students will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology.

In addition, the arguer fails to prove us how the schools in Eyleria ensure all students will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Even if the number 1:7 is indeed sufficient for use, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that all of the students will be fully proficient. As we know, students proficient skill depends on several major factors other than the number of computers, for instance, how much hours students spend on computers, whether they can get enough help when they encounter problems with computer. Unless the arguer also takes these factors into consideration, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Finally, it is terrifically unwise to decrease or even stop spending budget on computers or other technology in the next few years. As is known to everyone, in the modern with increasing technology, cheeseparing or grudging in budget on computers or other technology means being divorced from the modern society even retrogressing. Although Eyleria's schools would have a plenteous budget several years ago, by then the money will turn out to be meaningless for their education out of date.

In summary, the argument is fraught with vogue, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions. Before the conclusion about the spending of budget is reached, many more detailed studies about the number and actual use of computers and complete understanding of the benefits about the budget are needed.

chenxgUID: 183868

61The 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--------------------------
The claim about the school’s budget is based on the fact that the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12(K-12) is 1:5 and educators’ evaluation as well as the arguer’s assumption that the number of computers in Eyleria’s schools are sufficient. However, does the fact support the arguer’s assumption? MayMaybe the students in Eyleria’s schools be proficient? Is it wise to spend no budget on computers or other technology?得一句话我觉得写的不好，我觉得不是budget，而是whether more moneny should be spent on computers

Firs of all, the figure cited by the arguer about the average ratio of computers nationally cannot provide any powerful support to his conclusions.文章中有好几个conclusion，你指的是哪一个？ As is cited in the argument that the fact that average ratio is 1:5 means that across the country all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms, but educators do not tell us the bottom line about this ratio. Without this information, we have every reason to doubt that the ratio of computers to students 1:7 in Eyleria's K-12 schools may not measure up to the bottom line. After all, the difference between 1:5 and 1:7 is actually not small at all. As a result, I can hardly agree to the arguer's conclusion, which is based on a gratuitous assumption that all of Eyleria's students will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology.

In addition, the arguer fails to prove us how the schools in Eyleria ensure all students will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Even if the number 1:7 is indeed sufficient for use, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that all of the students will be fully proficient. As we know, students proficient skill depends on several major factors other than the number of computers, for instance, how much hours students spend on computers, whether they can get enough help when they encounter problems with computer. Unless the arguer also takes these factors into consideration, the conclusion is unconvincing. 这段不错

Finally, it is terrifically unwise to decrease or even stop spending budget on computers or other technology in the next few years. As is known to everyone, in the modern with increasing technology, cheeseparing or grudging in budget on computers or other technology means being divorced【离婚？】 from the modern society even retrogressing. Although Eyleria's schools would have a plenteous budget several years ago, by then the money will turn out to be meaningless for their education out of date.我想这段你主要是想说电脑的淘汰率很好，可是你文字表达的不好

In summary, the argument is fraught with vogue, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions. Before the conclusion about the spending of budget is reached, many more detailed studies about the number and actual use of computers and complete understanding of the benefits about the budget are needed.
【如果能够从调查的survey只是针对K－12进行，并不能说明其他年级的水平。这个方面说一下是不是更好。】
【个人意见，仅供参考。】

chenxgUID: 183868

下面是我写的，有空看看吧
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251462

lunaticUID: 150745

第一个我觉得是学校是否有必要对电脑进行财政支持，而不是花不花更多钱的问题
第二个，其实文中就一个conclusion就是财政不支持电脑，但那个地方我应该再提一下
最后，那段我是说如果不在电脑等技术领域投掷会使他们的发展落后于时代。最后也许他们财政上富有了，但他们的教育水平将落后于时代。be divorced from 有脱离的意思，可能不地道
thanks