[技术思考] 有关ARGUMENT中的无背景SURVEY要不要批 [复制链接]

最後の使徒
UID: 2257608

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 427
寄托币: 22408
注册时间: 2006-9-29
精华: 55
帖子: 644

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-4 02:02:51 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

这个讨论已久, 我从来反对批ARGUMENT出现的"a recent survey shows...""a survey conducted by ...."之类的论据, 也就是无调查对象, 无调查手段, 无调查者背景的"三无调查"

理由很简单: "类雷同"

ARGUMENT的错误比较固定, 因此其写作中论点趋同很正常, 因此对于雷同判定也显得比较松

但是不同的题目, 错误不同, 其推断和批驳手法也不同, 即使同样的错误, 不同的人举出的它因也会不同, 做出的逻辑推断出发点, 方向都会不同, 因此才会有这五彩缤纷的作文世界

批改作文无数, 见到的看见SURVEY就上的也无数, 观其特征, 无不无比眼熟, 估计原因都来自于ETS的某篇官方6分范文:

A recent survey of dental patients showed that people who use Smile-Bright toothpaste are most likely to have capped teeth -- artificial but natural-looking protective coverings placed by dentists on individual teeth. Those people who had begun using Smile-Bright toothpaste early in life were more likely to have capped teeth than were people who had begun using Smile-Bright later in life. In addition, those who reported brushing their teeth more than twice a day with Smile-Bright toothpaste were more likely to have caps on their teeth than were those who reported brushing with Smile-Bright less frequently. Therefore, people wishing to avoid having their teeth capped should not use Smile-Bright toothpaste.

In evaluating the evidence of the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. If the questions were leading or if the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answer. One must also consider how broad the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few patients of a certain dentist, the results might be attributable to those particular individuals and that particular dentist. Hence, the generalization drawn might not apply to most people. In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For example, were the survey respondents old people? Was the survey limited to a certain city or geographic region? Factors such as these could explain the survey results and could undermine the generalizability of the survey results.

我们先不说这样的置疑是否有效是否有力是否有根据是严谨还是吹毛, 既然ETS这么写了咱就拿它当宝贝.
请问, 对于这种没有特殊性的论据的攻击, 你能保证写出比这个官方范文有更多细节更多可能性更严密的论证么?
请问, 你能保证举出的细节和可能性比作者更多, 却不是空穴来风而是有理有据么?
请问, 你能保证写到所有的置疑点, 却依旧有自己的个性么?
请问, 你能保证阅卷官在看了成千上万个类似的段落后, 还会对你的这段论证有好奇心, 有好感, 会依据它给你高分么?

ARGUMENT有240多道题, 所有题的因果关系中的因和果都不会是一样的, 推广的参考者和接纳者也不会是一样的, 因此即使一个月内最高频率几十人抽到同一道题, 阅卷官撞大运一个人把所有这些都收了, 也顶多看几十道, 而survey呢? 几十道题都可以这么用, 同样的话换哪里都一样用, ETS又把最标准最牛B的格式摆在那里了, 大家模仿起来哪个不是熟练成精写得比ETS还ETS, 试问这样阅卷官会看到多少疑似N胞胎的段落? 看多了什么反映? 烦.

这个就是所谓的"类雷同", 它不是严格意义上的雷同, 也不会必然使考试分数被取消或者给得极低, 但却会破坏文章的个性和针对性, 作文是要找亮点的, 没有亮点的作文阅卷官自然找不出给你高分的理由, 而类雷同的文章何来亮点?

的确, 5分的作文要求中并没有提到"OUTSTANDING", 只是要求STRONG ,但是GRE考试的评分遵循"爽度平衡", 即你爽了他不爽, 总有部分人爽有部分人不爽, 当所有人在同一点上都进化到STRONG了, 那么这一点上还有STRONG可言么?

另外可能有人觉得我老这么说大家都不写无背景无资料的SURVEY了, 自己一写就爽了--放心, 能看到我这帖子的人在GRE考生中绝对是少数......

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-3-4 10:08 编辑 ]