- 最后登录
- 2010-12-22
- 在线时间
- 238 小时
- 寄托币
- 2157
- 声望
- 9
- 注册时间
- 2005-3-30
- 阅读权限
- 35
- 帖子
- 25
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 1869
- UID
- 203387
- 声望
- 9
- 寄托币
- 2157
- 注册时间
- 2005-3-30
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 25
|
Ets范文:
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
SAMPLE-1 (score 6)
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products either to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.
The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
可以看出,各段首句直接了当,很少general statement.对ets考官来说,越是赤裸他们越高兴,因为这样可以迅速定位,找到采分点!:lol:lol
^_^个人见解!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills. The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic's fallacious reasoning could ".inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
-- that preventive and protective gear are not the same
-- that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because
they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
-- that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the
injuries
-- that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficialThe discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
根据pp3中的说明:
Do not spend a lot of time summarizing the argument unless you think it will effectively develop your critique. Readers know which Argument topic you were assigned. Unless you think it will effectively develop your critique
为了便于对比就先拿我的一篇argument的开头开刀吧!
In this argument, the author concludes that the Luxess is truly effective in improving the condition of facial skin. The foundation for this conclusion is that the respondents washed their faces with mild soap and then applied Luxess after which they reported a marked improvement in the way their skin looked and felt. While this argument has some merit, there are some assumptions that are open to question.
红色的部分完全是在重述原文,没有一点价值也就是pp3中指出的spend a lot of time to summarize the argument.而且后面的is open to question也是套话,简直是一堆垃圾! 我看了许多新gter的argument开头,和我的差不多,基本上是照着模板来写的!和范文不知差了有多少!
范文中的开头基本上符合pp3中的后半句话: Unless you think it will effectively develop your critique. 把argument中的内容和自己对其的分析结合了起来!而不是脱节----先复述题目,后面来一句although it has some merit,………
不过ets对此的评价不是很高. 但一篇文章总不能连头都没有.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic's fallacious reasoning could ".inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws.
因此,我对开头写法的观点是: 用近乎极限简短的语句将argument中的内容和自己的分析结合起来. 比如我把自己的开头改为:
According insufficient evidence like that the respondents applied Luxess after washing their faces and reported improvement of facial conditions, the author concludes that the Luxess is truly effective. However, his/her conclusion is unconvincing after closer examination.(感觉还是不够简洁,那位大侠帮一下忙^_^)
:lol:lol:lol:handshake:victory:
[ Last edited by hustzwj on 2005-7-25 at 10:48 ] |
|