Argument221 无语了

bhnUID: 2177959

ARGUMENT221 - The following appeared in the editorial section of a student newspaper.
"In a recent survey, most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers of Russian is easy to see: the non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves, and so they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. Therefore, in order to improve instruction for all languages and also save money, our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speakers."
13:31-14:42
A. effective teaching ?
B. even if ,all? disadvantages of non-native speaker.
C. less money? other language?

Based on the recent survey, which renders that non-native speaker teachers are mort popular in students than native speakers teacher in Russian Teaching. The arguer recommends that the university should hire non-native speaker instructors instead of native speakers  so as to improve the instruction for all languages, as well as save money. A close scrutiny, however reveals several mistakes in some aspects.

The threshold problem is that the arguer unfairly assumes that it is because the non-native speaker teachers are more effective in teaching Russian that they are been highly valued. However, the survey provide no information concerning by() which standard the students valued teachers. It is entirely possible that native teachers could have the ability ,which perhaps non-native ones have not, to enliven() the class ,for example, telling jokes, so the students are more willing to take such classes rather than an dull Russian Class. It is equally possible that the non-naive teachers generally grade their students higher than the native teachers. Without consider and ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot simply equal the popularity of non-native teachers to the effective teaching.

The next problem lies with the neglect of the disadvantages of non-native speakers as a Russian teacher. Admittedly, non-native speakers might have a better understandings of how to teach and learn a foreign language, and they can share experience with students to make them lean smoothly. But to conclude that they are more effective in teaching than native ones ,it depend on another factor: How well they master the Russian. Could they using Russian as smoothly as the natives? As learning a foreign language also needs leaning the culture, could non-native teachers have a better knowledge of Russian culture than native teachers? Perhaps not. If so, native speakers are needed. Furthermore, even granting that the teaching level of native speakers are not as good as non-native ones, it is still uncertain that the overall level of native speakers are lower than the non-native teachers since no data regarding the number of teachers engaging() in Russian teaching. If only two teacher major in teaching Russian: one native speaker, another nonnative speaker, Of course,  no convincing conclusion could the draw form such a small sample.

Another problem worth pointing out is that the arguer falsely assumes that employing only non-native speakers as language instructors could save money. But the arguer provide no evidence that native-speakers would pursue higher income than the non-native ones. What if the non-native speaker teachers are paid higher? In addition, even assuming that non-native speakers  should be hired as instructors in Russian Teaching, there is scant evidence that same policy should be applied to other foreign languages teaching. Perhaps different languages needs different way of teaching and variant kind of teacher.

In sum, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands unless it  provide further information I needed, which I have mention above.

大洋彼岸的梦想UID: 2209150

我很留情面的，呵呵;P

[ 本帖最后由 大洋彼岸的梦想 于 2006-5-29 21:44 编辑 ]

bhnUID: 2177959

Based on the recent survey, which renders that non-native speaker teachers (这么用不对的，2个n.)are mort（more） popular in students than native speakers teacher(这么用不对的，2个n.) in Russian Teaching. The arguer recommends that the university should hire non-native speaker instructors (这么用不对的，2个n.) instead of native speakers so as to improve the instruction for all languages, as well as save money. A close scrutiny however reveals several mistakes in some aspects.

The threshold problem is that the arguer unfairly assumes that it is because the non-native speaker teachers are more effective in teaching Russian that they are been highly valued. However, the survey provide(s) no information concerning by which standard the students valued teachers. It is entirely possible that native teachers could have the ability, which perhaps non-native ones have not, to enliven the class, for example, telling jokes, so the students are more willing to take such classes rather than an dull Russian Class. It is equally possible that the non-naïve (non-native) teachers generally grade their students higher than the native teachers. Without consider (considering) and ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot simply equal the popularity of non-native teachers to the effective teaching.

The next problem lies with (in) the neglect of the disadvantages of non-native speakers as a Russian teacher. Admittedly, non-native speakers might have a better understanding(s) of how to teach and learn a foreign language, and they can share experience with students to make them lean smoothly. But to conclude that they are more effective in teaching than native ones, it depend(s) on another factor: How well they master the Russian.(这句话不对to what degree do they master the Russian)   Could they using(use) Russian as smoothly as the natives? As learning a foreign language also needs leaning the culture, could non-native teachers have a better knowledge of Russian culture than native teachers? Perhaps not. If so, native speakers are needed. Furthermore, even granting that the teaching level of native speakers are not as good as non-native ones, it is still uncertain that the overall level of native speakers are lower than the non-native teachers since no data regarding the number of teachers engaging (engaged) in Russian teaching. If only two teacher major in teaching Russian: one native speaker, another nonnative speaker, Of course, no convincing conclusion could the draw form such a small sample.

Another problem worth pointing out is that the arguer falsely assumes that employing only non-native speakers as language instructors could save money. But the arguer provide(s) no evidence that native-speakers would pursue higher income than the non-native ones. What if the non-native speaker teachers are paid higher? In addition, even assuming that non-native speakers should be hired as instructors in Russian Teaching, there is scant evidence that same policy should be applied to other foreign languages teaching. Perhaps different languages need(s) different way of teaching and variant kind of teacher.

In sum, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands unless it  provide(s) further information I needed, which I have mention above.


怎么说呢，你这篇文章基本所有的问题都抓住了，但是重点抓的不对。这就是为什么我那篇文章本来打算重新写了。今天下午看了一些东西，觉得很受启发，ARGU其实并不是像想象中的那么简单….
首先我重申一下ETS对A的评判标准  内容深刻》文章结构》文章文采。
今天下午我们聊天的时候你说形式很单一的时候我就想说这个的，你说内容是你的，可是并不是足够深刻，甚至分析一下根本就没有抓住重点，其实我们都有这个毛病。基于此，这篇文章我就主要针对这个方面进行说明吧
正确的逻辑推理过程应该是这样的，我就以核心词来说明
Premise: survey—beginning—Russian---higher evaluation
Assumption: survey—advantages of non-native
Conclusion: save money&improve—all languages—non-native
有两组关系，前提和结论的；假设和结论的。这其中前提和结论的错误是第一攻击点，你比较一下，最重要的是（1）俄语和其他语言的问题 （2）调查的结果是初学者的，不能推广到所有程度的语言学习者 （3）省钱。以上都是首要要攻击的
其次攻击你说那些了

可能有不对的地方，还是要讨论讨论，最好你也弄个MIC讨论也方便，不用打字了：）
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIC是有的，不过我一般不在教室用电脑的，偶尔会。
那个以俄语为母语的俄语老师到底应该怎么说？/？ 名词不是也可以作定语么？我不知道给怎么说，就瞎写了一个。
下面是我对这个题目的看法：
作者的证据：初级俄语的调查，非母语（俄语）老师的优势。
作者的推理：初级俄语的调查调查+非母语老师的优势----〉非母语（俄语）老师更好-----〉非母语老师都更好（推广到其他语言，和其他级别的课程）------〉为了改进教学和省钱就要聘请非母语老师。
重要的攻击点：1。非母语（俄语）老师更好不成立。a.调查有问题 b.没有全面考虑他们的优缺点
                      2。推广到其他语言，和其他级别的课程，是没有根据的。不同语言不同课程有不同特点，不能草率推广。
                      3。能省钱？（这一点，太弱，就是错误太明显，不必费太多语言攻击）
重新想了一下，觉得应该是我上面说的那样。不太同意你的意见：
最重要的是（1）俄语和其他语言的问题 （2）调查的结果是初学者的，不能推广到所有程度的语言学习者 （3）省钱。以上都是首要要攻击的
其次攻击你说那些了。
调查是一个主要的证据，因此也是一个大的错误，是可以发挥的一个批驳点
关于（1）俄语和其他语言的问题 （2）调查的结果是初学者的，不能推广到所有程度的语言学习者这两点是一个问题，合并就好了。而且这两点和省钱是最普通的错误（基本上谁都可以说出来的，所以按常规写法很难有闪光点）

[ 本帖最后由 bhn 于 2006-5-30 10:36 编辑 ]

bhnUID: 2177959

觉得用你说的那么论证，那是最普通的论证，太平庸了。大部分人都会那么写，这样写出来还会有什么特点？草率推广，没有证据。。。老一套的东西（嘿嘿，这里不是说我写的就好，我写的那个也是老一套的东西）
我们也许可以这样写，作者的目的是improve instruction for all languages and also save money
做法是our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speake雇佣谁的标准肯定是谁更优秀，应该根据个人的实际水平来定，每个老师的水平应该是不同的。如果要得出必须要雇佣“非以外语为母语的老师"的结论，那么必须存在这样一个前提：那就是社会上所有的"非以外语为母语"的老师的水平都不如本国老师（如果社会上存在一个水平比本国教师更高的外籍教师，还是应该考虑聘请的），并且他们的工资水平较低。

显然，工资较低，可以被我们直接否定。
社会上所有外籍教师水平都低与本地教师，显然是荒谬的。为什么，1。调查显然没有说服力，仅仅是一个评价而已，不能直接反映教师水平。
2。只说明了本学校的情况，可能本学校并没有代表性，也许学校俄语教师很少，不能反映社会整体情况 3。仅仅提供一个本国教师的优势是不够的
4。只说了初级俄语一个例子，其他语言和高级班没有提到。
这样一来，得出结论的前提就不存在，结论自然就没有说服力。

------------------否定前提是最重要的，是最说服力的----------------------------------

既然不能排除社会上有好的外籍教师，那怎么能说不能雇用外籍教师呢。

虽然A的错误是一定的，但我觉得我们还是可以从不同的角度来批驳的，从从结论所依附的前提来批驳，看一看结论需要什么样的前提，然后看文中能否证明存在这样的前提。只要有足够的说服力，能真正的驳倒原论证，让考官看到你缜密的思维（用传统的论证，大家都那样写，显然考官不会认为你有什么深邃的洞察力，严密的逻辑什么的）还是可以得到考官赞许的。
这是今天上午的一点想法，我那篇文章不是这么写的。

大洋彼岸的梦想UID: 2209150

对啊，我的想法不就和你今天上午的想法差不多吗？“从从结论所依附的前提来批驳，看一看结论需要什么样的前提”，最重要的是由前提到结论的推导过程。。。无语了，为什么我那么说太平庸了啊？你那124，我不都是这么认为的吗？只有省钱的问题和你那3有出入。。。

      我之所以把省钱放到首要攻击上是因为那个也是结论，而你那个3只是中间论据~~~

[ 本帖最后由 大洋彼岸的梦想 于 2006-5-30 14:18 编辑 ]

bhnUID: 2177959

不好意思，说得太直接了。我不是说错误平庸，而是说我们传统的写法太平庸了。
我的意思是这样写：
正文第一段一开始就指出要得出作者的那个结论，必须有这样一个前提：
那就是社会上所有的"非以外语为母语"的老师的水平都不如本国老师（如果社会上存在一个水平比本国教师更高的外籍教师，还是应该考虑聘请的），并且他们的工资水平较低。离开这个前提，结论就不能成立。
下面验证前提是否存在
第二段，省钱没有根据
第三段，社会上所有外籍教师水平都低与本地教师，显然是荒谬的。
1。调查显然没有说服力，仅仅是一个评价而已，不能直接反映教师水平。
2。只说明了本学校的情况，可能本学校并没有代表性，也许学校俄语教师很少，不能反映社会整体情况
3。仅仅提供一个本国教师的优势是不够的
4。只说了初级俄语一个例子，其他语言和高级班没有提到。
结论，前题不存在，结论不成立。

bhnUID: 2177959

我刚开始写的那个思路（就是那个红的）跟你的思路是不同的。我是根据作者推理的顺序来批驳的，从推理的最开始开始（就是survey）然后逐渐到结论。
后来写的那个思路是倒着推理的。
你在重点中没有写survey，而我认为那是一个重点，其实我还是认为没有所谓的最好的批驳方法，还是可以多种方法并存的。
我说平庸的一个重要原因是这样很难写得跟别人不同，一般人很难写出特色。不过我不知道你会怎么写，你也可能写得很出色，其实可能我页没有理解你的意思（所以这一点我说的是没有过根据的）