0706G同主题写作第十四期——Argument38 (新规则实验版) (2楼3楼总结已完成)

iq28UID: 2152875

首先通知大家,这次实验同主题的规则有所变动.

以往同主题分析主体都是在大家习作给出之前就已经给出.
这一次正好相反,具体的题目分析将在对于大家的习作评析完毕之后给出.


这样做的理由

首先比较符合大家在考场上的实际,因为真正在考场上看到题目的时候旁边是不会有细致的分析的;

其次把习作分析完之后再总结更加有针对性,知道大家的共性缺陷在什么地方才能做到有的放矢.


活动操作方法

前五名贴习作的筒子的习作我会去全文修改.

五名以后的筒子的文章我看了如果觉得典型,同样可能会全文进行修改.

所有人的习作都会成为最后分析的原始数据.

原始数据的用法具体参考以前imong(崇拜...)的这个经典帖子
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-175162-1-1.html


另外,此前同主题的互改规则这次同样适用.
包括我要改的习作,楼上的gter也必须改.

改别人的习作首先也是对于自己的一种提高.
更何况我对于文章的见解也不可能尽善尽美.
你的建议相比于我的建议,对于作者肯定也有独到之处.

具体如下

请第一个参与同主题的GTER修改下一个参与的，依次类推，保证每个参与者的作文都能够得到修改。e.g.第一楼回帖的kito贴了习作，第二楼的秘方没有贴习作，第三楼的YY贴了习作。则kito修改YY的。


贴习作规则

大家占楼时先贴习作的链接

习作的发帖规则再次强调
一定要符合标准
具体参考此帖
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-208286-1-1.html

习作必须放在word里面修改过语法错误.

习作帖子里一定要注明写作用时.
最好是限时的,贴近实战.

链接前面必须按照顺序给出你的文章每个body的原文ts.(英文的)


违反以上规则任意一条的习作,将被排除在本次活动之外



下面进入题目


Argument38

The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."

翻译
我们注意到一种保证可以显著减少学校和工作岗位的缺席的革新疗法。一项研究报告说在附近的East Meria，鱼的消费量很高，那里的人们每年因为治感冒而去看医生的次数只有一或两次。显然，吃较大量的鱼可以预防感冒。由于感冒是学校和单位缺席的最常见原因，我们建议每天服用Ichthaid，一种从鱼油中提炼的营养物质，作为预防感冒和减少缺席率的有效措施。


简单分析:
本题出现频率还是很高的,在总频中一共出现54次,排名第十.
难度偏低,作者的推理主线相对清晰.
攻击点既不是很少,也没有多到无法取舍的地步.比较容易上手的一个题目.

具体对于题目的分析我现在只给出这些.
稍微帮助大家理一理题目.

作者引用的两个背景情况
A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds.

Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work.

作者的两个结论
Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.

we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.



针对于这个题目的具体分析等到分析完大家的习作再贴上来.


下面给出一些关于Argument写法总体阐述的链接
希望大家写之前能看看
不要犯过于基本的错误

关于开头和结尾
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-607686-1-1.html

关于批驳对象的选取
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=620337&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Ddigest

关于body的深入论证
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-199905-1-1.html

关于实例的用法
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=630644&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Ddigest



这次实验同主题工作量会相当大
周六开始总结 周日可能可以做完

新方法肯定会暴露出很多不成熟不可取之处
我会根据活动进行实际情况修改相应规则
欢迎大家踊跃贴链接

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-4-2 21:20 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

好了,带着刚刚看完we连下mym两把的愉悦心情,这次同主题的重头戏终于开始了.:)

   

                                  寻找攻击点             

下面按照题目的顺序,一步一步来分析.

The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

可爱的地名West Meria(WM).
为经典的地域外推错误埋下了伏笔.
因为下面重要的事实根据来源于East Meria(ES)的情况.
继续看下面.

An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces.

看到这里还没法找攻击点.因为这只是一个总领性的句子,提到了有某种方法可以降低旷工旷课的情况.
不过作者倒是很仁慈地帮我们点了一下思路,因为从这里我们可以看出作者的最终的目的是要在WM降低旷工旷课的现象. So,看下面的材料的时候心里就会比较有谱.不管前面作者怎么兜圈子,反正最后都要往旷课旷工上面靠.

A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds.

此处作者列举了两个事实

a. EM这个地方鱼的消耗量很大.
b. 人们每年因为感冒去医生那里只有一到两次.

首先,还是我一再强调的,每个事实的本身不值得攻击,我们要去argu的是他们之间的关系.
所以严格来说到了这里攻击点还没有出现,这两个事实的罗列只是为下面的攻击提供了素材.

当然如果大家题库过了很多,看到这里就会猜到,作者很有可能会把这两件事归结为因果关系.如果能看出这一点,那么攻击点就已经出现了.

在这个题目里作者确实非常乖,下一句就自己把前面两句之间的推理过程给我们挑明了.
然而在某些题目中(比如53,melatonin导致延续性羞涩;73,租车;167,熏衣草治失眠,),材料本身有着大量的背景信息,有着一层一层的逻辑推理关系,但是作者并没用在中间给出适时的推理或者中间结论,那么我们只能自己去摸索作者的逻辑思路.所以说作者的适时总结其实是一个个路标,指引我们顺着他的思路走下去,这样攻击起来也会容易很多.

先看下面作者给我们的路标吧.

Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds.

出现了一个大大的clearly.
筒子们应该已经察觉到,作者的臆断开始了.
作者总结出:吃大量的鱼可以防止感冒.

为了方便下面讨论,和前面的a和b对应起来,在这里把吃大量的鱼定义为c,将低频率感冒定义为d.
作者明确给出的结论是:c能够导致d.
推论的根基是前面的a和b两个事实.
简单的罗列了a和b两个事实,没有任何证据,就给出了c可以导致d.
而且,从a到c, b到d的过程,概念还发生了一定程度的偷换.

具体关系如下图

    a. EM鱼的消耗量很大.  -------------> b. 人们每年因为感冒去医生那里只有一到两次.
        (默认等价)                                      (默认等价)
    c. 吃大量的鱼.         ------------->     d. 较低的感冒发病率.


攻击点:
1. 假设了c导致了d
2. 将c等同于a,d等同于b.

比较重要的错误是第一个,典型的无因果,一个动态的过程.
第二个错误具体是,c里面说去医院少不等于d里面的得感冒少,a里面的整个EM地区鱼的消耗量大不等于当地人吃的鱼多.
第二个错误可以作为第一个的补充,但不能取代第一个的地位.
实战操作中,c=a和b=d,这两个选择一个就可以了,攻击一下c推导出d的根基,主要的火力还是应该放在作者无理认为c导致了d上面.
个人觉得c=d更好说一点.


小tip:材料中的一些敏感词.

argu材料读多了的筒子们应该都发现,某些特定的词后面往往就是作者的臆断,而这些臆断一般就是我们攻击的活靶子.

比如,clearly, will, would, show, because, likely, show一出,作者就开始把两件不相干的事情强扣上因果帽子了;
thus, therefore, conclude, can一出,作者就要由前面的事实总结出莫明其妙的结论了;
must, should, suggest一出,作者就要开始给出让人喷饭的建议了;

ETS其实还是很仁慈的,这种明显的有感情倾向的词汇其实都在告诉我们:向我开炮吧!

接着往下看题目.

Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work,

感谢一下作者的仁慈吧,又是一个给出的路标,将colds和题目开头中出现的终极目标absecences联系了起来.
不过看到这里还是要稳住,这句话本身没有什么值得攻击的地方,要看作者的下一步建议,具体是怎么把前面的防止感冒和防止旷课联系起来的.

we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.

先无视后面的lower absenteeism.

经典的地域问题在这里终于出场了.
前面讲的鱼和感冒的关系都是作者在探讨总结EM地区的情况.
而这个memo是出现在WM的报纸上,面向的对象显然是WM地区
WM地区情况能和EM一样么?

攻击点:
WM不等于EM.


然后,这里出现了一个大生词:Ichthaid.

它是什么?作者说它是'a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil'
磕它有什么用?作者说这是'a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.'

前面都在说吃鱼能防止感冒,这里怎么就换成了Ichthaid防止感冒了?
作者可没有说,吃鱼能防止感冒是因为里面的Ichthaid.
于是又一个攻击点产生了.

攻击点:
吃鱼不等于吃Ichthaid.


最后转到abscences的问题.
作者的Ichthaid能够lower absenteeism的理由:

一个本身不能攻击的前提:
'colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work'

两个我们让步承认的前提:
1. EM=WM.
2. Ichthaid可以prevent colds.

作者觉得,既然咱们WM地区的感冒发病率会下降,又因为感冒是最常见的作为absences的理由,那么absences也肯定会随着感冒发病率的下降而下降.

absences唯一的原因就是colds么?
traffic jam? emergiencies?
尽管迟到是most frequently的原因,但它并不是唯一的.

然后,一个值得琢磨的词:given.
give的主语和宾语?
当然是学生把理由给老师,雇员把理由给老板.
他们给出的理由就是真正的原因么? Obviously this is not the case. 大家都是学生,这点常识应该还是有的吧.

可能有人会觉得这里我是攻击了背景,题目都已经说了colds是reason了,我怎么还在攻击它的真实性呢?

引起我怀疑的就是那个given.
given一出,就表明这个reason是迟到者本身提出的,其客观性和真实性就可以怀疑了.
此时的reason翻译成'原因'个人觉得不恰当,更好的翻译应该是'理由'.
(查了一下韦氏,里面对于reason的一个解释:a statement offered in explanation or justification. 里面的offered基本就等同于given.)
所以,原文'colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work'
个人认为更好的翻译应该是'感冒是最常见的旷工旷课的理由'
旷工旷课者给出的理由当然就不一定是真实旷工旷课的原因了.至于真正的原因是什么,各位就可以充分发挥自己的想象力了.

攻击点:
absences现象并不一定会随着感冒发病率的下降而下降.


好了,至此大大小小的错误基本都已经找出,在这里汇总一下:

1. 假设了c导致了d.
2. 将c等同于a,d等同于b.
3. WM不等于EM.
4. 吃鱼不等于吃Ichthaid.
5. absences现象并不一定会随着感冒发病率的下降而下降.

看了这次大家总结的错误(看链接帖子里面的ts),觉得问题不是很大,因为这个题目确实比较简单.

反例就抓到三个,简单在这里讲一下.


                                               第一个

if in EM the adsenteeism is only due to cold and if the Lchthaid is useful to treat cold for the people of EA that are skeptical

首先这个ts本身写的很不清楚,不太知道你到底想说什么.
然后主要的问题是:不要把absenteeism和EM地区纠缠在一起.

作为作者的推理情报来源,EM地区只是涉及到了吃鱼和感冒的情况.下面的Ichthaid和absenteeism都是作者针对WM提出的建议或希望解决的问题,和EM完全无关.所以把absenteeism跟EM混在一起是很明显的失误.

                                                第二个

Finally, the author fails to find out the real reasons of absenteeism.

这个点不能作为单独的错误列出来.
我们不是为了找反例而找反例,是为了用反例而来充实对于作者那些无因果或者忽略它因错误的攻击.
这个题目里面,错误是作者认为absenteeism会随着colds发病率的下降而下降,根据上面一层帖子的分析, real reasons是为了攻击absenteeism会随着colds减少而减少的这种关系而服务的.单独列出real reasons显然没有太大意义.

                                                 第三个

The second is that other neglect other seasons that may cause people in East Meria less visits the doctor.

和上面一个同样类型的错误.列举的去医院的它因只是为了充实对于'2. 将c等同于a,d等同于b.'这一点的攻击.它因本身不构成错误.

再次重申,我们不是为了找它因而找它因,找它因只是为了使得对于逻辑错误的攻击更加细节话,从而让人信服.

至此错误都找完了.
然而怎么把这些错误在考场上有限的时间内串起来,给出一个看上去至少很清楚甚至有逻辑的攻击顺序,将是下一层探讨的问题.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-4-2 21:15 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

                     攻击顺序安排


上面找出5个错误,先撂在这儿:

A. 假设了c导致了d.
B. 将c等同于a,d等同于b.
C. WM不等于EM.
D. 吃鱼不等于吃Ichthaid.
E. absences现象并不一定会随着感冒发病率的下降而下降.

作者的逻辑主线:
EM地区的两个事实--->吃鱼可以防止感冒--->WM地区吃Ichthaid防止感冒--->从而减少absences的情况.

本题难度确实不大,就是因为逻辑主线非常清楚,大体的攻击顺序完全可以按照作者推理的顺序,而且我觉得这也是最好的攻击顺序.

推荐的攻击顺序:
吃鱼并不一定能防止感冒.(AB两点)
就算吃鱼能防止感冒,WM地区居民吃Ichthaid也不一定能防止感冒.(CD两点)
就算WM地区的感冒问题得到缓解,absences问题也不一定能解决.(E点)

注意前最后一个点absences的问题是发生在WM,和这个点直接相连的是WM地区的Ichthaid治感冒法而不是EM地区的鱼治疗感冒法.这个大的顺序问题有人忽略了.

下面是习作里面几个我认为攻击顺序选取很不好的反面教材

第一个反例

1. First, there is no evidence to support that people seldom visit the doctor in East Meria is due to the high fish consumption.
2.Second, the author unfairly assumes that the more people prevent cold, the less absence happen.
3.Third, the assumption that the Ichthaid has the same function as fish is unreasonable.
4.Finally, it is also doubtful that the facts drawn from East Meria are applicable to the West Meria.

大的顺序是鱼vs感冒,感冒vs旷工旷课,最后讲了Ichthaid和WM的问题
回过头来看看作者的逻辑线

EM地区的两个事实--->吃鱼可以防止感冒--->WM地区居民吃Ichthaid防止感冒--->从而减少absences的情况.

减少absences的前提必须是WM地区居民吃Ichthaid确实能够防止感冒,也就是说,攻击absences问题的时候事实上就已经默认了WM地区的Ichthaid是有效的.
看前面的攻击顺序:先攻击EM地区两个事件吃鱼和去医院看感冒人少的因果关系;然后跳跃至WM地区讨论感冒和旷课旷工关系;最后忽然掉头回来,再探讨EM的鱼过渡到WM的Ichthaid是如何的不合理.
这种攻击的顺序没有逻辑连续性.第一层只是在说EM地区的事情,第二层的absences突然跑到全新的WM,跳跃严重.最后再绕回来把EM和WM,鱼和Ichthaid连系起来.
读起来明显感觉突兀得很,个人不推荐.

再看一个反例

1.First, the statement makes sure the benefit of fish consumption without deliberately consideration of other possible reasons for East Meria (EM) people’s resistance with colds.
2.That people visit the doctor only once or twice for treatment of colds does not mean people of EM suffer colds rarely.
3.Even suppose substantial amount of fish is good for colds prevention, the conclusion that it can prevent absenteeism can not be reached, since many reasons can be blamed for absenteeism.
4.Whether Ichthaid, which is derived form fish oil, can substitute fish itself is still arguable.

宏观问题和前面一个基本一样.
先讲到了EM地区鱼和感冒的问题(其实1和2的问题很大,1本身写的不好,1和2的顺序也不好,下面再详细讲,这里先讲宏观的顺序),然后就开始跳过WM和Ichthaid的问题直接涉及到了absenteeism问题,最后再回转到了Ichthaid的问题.理由同上,这里就不再多说了.
和前面一个攻击顺序相比这一个少了WM和EM的地域差别攻击.这个其实也不是很大的问题.考试的时候攻击4个点也足够了.

再次总结最宏观的顺序:
鱼在最前,Ichthaid和WM在中间,最后才涉及到absences的问题.三者和感冒都有关系.


大层次的攻击顺序安排结束了,下面就要开始考虑更细层次的顺序安排问题了.

首先,鱼和感冒的攻击涉及了A和B两点,顺序应该如何安排?
事实上这里我觉得哪个前哪个后关系不大.
如果B在前那就可以给出一个让步关系,先小质疑一下感冒发病率是否真的下降,然后再说就算下降也不一定是吃鱼的原因;
如果A在前可以先把作者的无因果观念狂批一顿之后再痛打落水狗,用 'what is more, it is even entirely possible that' 给出作者推理的根基即感冒发病率下降的事实可能不成立的补充攻击,步步紧逼的反驳同样可以.
关键是要突出A的主要地位.相比于B而言,A是一个很大的错误,在作者的逻辑链里面占据了一个环节的是A而不是B.甚至可以认为攻击B是为了攻击A服务的.所以不要仅仅为了攻击B而攻击B,为了B单开一个段落的写法,个人不推荐.
反例:

The second is that other neglect other seasons that may cause people in East Meria less visits the doctor. It is possible that actually people there often catch cold, but they do not treat it seriously and so lazy as to not go to visit the doctor or they think that visit the doctor do not help them in cure the ill, they just let the immune system to cure the colds.

且不说微观上这段攻击的本身很失败,问题相当多;宏观上这个段落本身非常孤立,没有任何和A错误连系起来的句子,从而无法直接攻击到作者的逻辑链.典型的为了攻击B而攻击B.

习作里面先B后A写的比较好的段落在此.注意学习段内紫色的词的用法.

    byzhizi552
To begin with, the mere fact that people in East Meria eat more fish and visit the doctor less for the treatment of colds does not indicate that fish is conducive to prevent colds. First, visiting the doctor less does not mean that people are having fewer colds. (这一句是目前看到的攻击看医生少不等于感冒少最简洁明了的.bingo) It is entirely possible that in East Meria, a large percent of the people would treat themselves at home by having some medicine when they catch a cold instead of visiting the doctor. In this case, it will make no sense that fewer people are visiting the doctor. (无可挑剔.非常好) In addition, given that people who catch cold are few, there is still possibility that other factors, which are more important than the fish consumption, are account for the low level. (太仁慈了.不要说more important了,直接就是攻击没有证据表明是鱼的作用,然后开始列举别的可能原因) Perhaps climate in East Media is mild which does not change significantly during the year, or people there do much exercise and eat much fruit which make it a nature for them to have less cold. Thus, without ruling out these possibilities, the author's conclusion is open to doubt. (总地来说这段确实不错!)

                                                      

再给大家看看使徒版主当年习作里面的这个段落(当然不给他稿费了~瓦咔咔)
大家可以参考参考学习使徒A和B两个层次之间是怎么转接过去的(红字),还有一些精髓的紫色结构词和代表了语气的词.这些词汇的精准应用可以使得一个段落很长攻击的错误很多而让人看上去仍然觉得层次很清楚.
别的就不用学了,限时700多的argu段落拉出来给大家看看只是饱饱眼福用的...

Firstly, the evidence cited by the author states that in East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people seldom visit the doctor. Such an evidence is insufficient to prove that the high fish consumption results in low infection rate of colds. Are people who do not visit the doctor healthy? As we know, colds are mostly slight disease that many people can overcome them by their immune system. So strong people are tend to stay home and just wait for recovering. (这里前后衔接有点突兀) We can suspect that people in East Meria have no less colds than people in other areas, but just do not visit doctors because they do not have other severe diseases. Even if such suspicion is not true, it is still premature to attribute the strong ability to prevent colds to the fish consumption, without investigating how the fish plays a role in those people's bodies. Although the high consumption and strong ability take in the same place, they may not have correlation with each other. It is entirely possible that people in East Meria are strong and not likely to catch colds just due to good gene, or they may have good living style to avoid colds. (meanwhile后面又讲到了B里面的错误.前面一个让步后面一个补充.B-A-B的攻击顺序.考场上时间不够就不用这么写了,看上去容易乱,而且其它重要错误也需要时间.不过使徒这个段落看上去层次还是很清晰的,结构词和语气词运用把握得很恰当.) Meanwhile, we cannot be sure the fish consumption is equal to eating them. If the large amount of fish is bought by some big companies used for making medicines in that area, or if people just buy those fish for keeping them as pets, the correlation between fish and colds can also be excluded. (补充攻击也念念不忘和吃鱼和感冒的关系联系上去.这个也需要学习)

先A后B的段落我就把自己以前写的拉出来,然后修改了下贴上来了.
紫色的词是我觉得大家可以学习的,这些带有感情色彩的词的良好运用可以使得文章的思路流淌起来很流畅.

To begin with, the existence of the high fish consumption and the low rate of treatment of colds does not necessarily equal to causation or even a correlation between them. Since the author provides no evidence to prove that it is the former causes the later, it is entirely possible that actually the colds rate has be diminished in other ways, such as that the warm and comfortable climate in East Meria in all the four seasons which may prevent the colds from occuring, or the residents in EM have already been immunized vaccine since they were children so that they do not often have colds. Moreover, it is even entirely possible that people in East Meria do have the same possibility of having colds, but they do not consider cold a serious disease, so that they would rather drink more water and have good sleep than see a doctor to have the treatment towards colds, which also leads to the results of the study that the frequence of treatment is low. Therefore, for those neglected matters mentioned above, the author cannot simply assert that eating fish can prevent colds.

鱼的问题讲完了,下面开始讲WM和Ichthaid的问题.
个人感觉这两个错误是同类型基本等价的.
一个是把EM换成了WM,另一个是把鱼换成了Ichthaid.
如果都单独开一个段落,首先是每个段落攻击都不会很饱满,比较难看;
更重要的是,考场上可能没有那么多的时间让你开那么多的段落.
所以个人觉得把这两个错误归结在一段讲比较好.
同样这两个错误段内的先后顺序不是很重要.基本平行的两个错误.
很多人都没有写到WM这个错误,想想觉得也可以.因为题目里面都说到了EM是nearby的,再扯到什么气候或者风土人情,人的体制差别上面也比较牵强.

对于这两个点的攻击比较好的段落有下面几个
对于Ichthaid的

   by pippo1983
Finally, even if cold is the reason for absences from work and school, and fish can help prevent colds, it is hardly to accept that the ichthaid, a supplement from fish can prevent colds. We do not know which element of fish is helpful to prevent colds. (段落不是很长,但是这一句很简单但是精髓的话却把问题搞得非常清楚,原文作者哑口无言.如果下面能够举出一些具体的例子那这个段落就完胜了) If it is not something from the fish oil which is essential for the prevention, the recommendation of eating the ichthaid will be useless.

                                                                     
攻击WM的段落

          by 荧惑
Finally, even if all assumptions described above are true, it is also doubtful that the facts drawn from East Meria are applicable to the West Meria. (清楚) It is possible that the component which can prevent colds in fish takes effect in the residents in West Meria and is useless for the residents in East Meria, as some of us recovered from taking aspirin and the others do not. (这句是很bingo,但是整段来看细节还是少了.反例局限在人的体质上是肯定写不多的.可以考虑两地感冒的不同原因.) If it is the case, the high fish consumption or the daily use of Ichthaid would not provide a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism in the West Meria which leads to the memo is unconvincing.

                                                                        
这个段落本身的逻辑其实是有问题的.作者并没有说Ichthaid会在EM生效.
大家要学习的是红色的ts和后面阿司匹林的那句实例,看了还是会让人觉得眼前一亮的.

WM和Ichthaid攻击完了,最后省下一个孤家寡人absences,也谈不上什么顺序安排了.


总结

推荐的攻击顺序

首先, A和B构成对于鱼能否防止感冒的攻击.其中A是主要的,B只是为了A服务.B和A的顺序只要处理得当,谁先谁后都一样.

其次,C和D构成对于WM和Ichthaid的攻击.两者基本平行,一个是地域外推,一个是鱼和Ichthaid之间的概念置换.两者的顺序基本无所谓.考虑考场上的实际,比较推荐把两个错误写在一段里面.实在时间来不及把地域差别忽略掉也可以,不是很严重的错误.Ichthaid这个错误相对比较明显,不能忽略.

最后就是攻击absences的问题.


对于absences的攻击感觉这应该是本题的一个难点了.
下面一层将会重点分析对于absences问题的攻击段落.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-4-2 21:18 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

                        攻击absenteeism段落的集中点评
                (请假了...这个又得推迟了...sigh)

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-4-4 02:26 编辑 ]

approachUID: 2101189

DD辛苦拉,我来沙发一下~哈哈

hejingCET4UID: 2308496

呵呵.板凳咯
顶一个,加油加油

chongxinlaiUID: 2235209

呼呼，赶上了，占了。一个人可以帖两个不？:loveliness:
中午模考，下午贴上来

1.First, the mere fact that people lived in East Meria visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds does not mean that  eating a amount of fish can prevent colds.
2.In addition, even though I concede that eating fish help people prevent colds, it is unreasonable to conclude that fish oil is the crucial factor to prevent colds.
3.given that the foregoing assumptions are substantiated, the arguer's assumption that preventing colds will lower absenteeism is open to question
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-638017-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 chongxinlai 于 2007-3-30 09:29 编辑 ]

annlyseaUID: 2219320

看来是赶上了

小板凳~~

1 if there is necessary relationship between eating a substantial amount of fish and low times for the treatment of colds in nearby EM that is not credible.
2 if using Lchthaid will have the identical effect that is doubtful
3 if in EM the adsenteeism is only due to cold and if the Lchthaid is useful to treat cold for the people of EA that are skeptical
my argument   https://bbs.gter.net/thread-638095-1-1.html

嘿嘿~~反面教材到！期待稿费~要发了HOHO

[ 本帖最后由 annlysea 于 2007-3-30 11:26 编辑 ]

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

加油

pippo1983UID: 172110

抢占有利地形。。呼呼
1 To begin with, the mere fact that people in nearby East Meria who often eat fish only visit doctor once or twice per year fails to establish any causality between them.
2 What is more, it is uncertain that colds are the most frequent reason for absenteeism.
3 Finally, even if cold is the reason for absences from work and school, and fish can help prevent colds, it is hardly to accept that the ichthaid, a supplement from fish can prevent colds.


https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 pippo1983 于 2007-3-30 09:50 编辑 ]

荧惑UID: 2280559

哈，支持~~
1. First, there is no evidence to support that people seldom visit the doctor in East Meria is due to the high fish consumption.
2.Second, the author unfairly assumes that the more people prevent cold, the less absence happen.
3.Third, the assumption that the Ichthaid has the same function as fish is unreasonable.
4.Finally, it is also doubtful that the facts drawn from East Meria are applicable to the West Meria.
....5~~~~竟然漏掉一个大Flaw...

典型:( ：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=638089&extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 荧惑 于 2007-3-30 11:30 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

关注一下。辛苦

zhizi522UID: 2307341

完成的非常汗。。。当反面教材好了。。

1.To begin with, the mere fact that people in East Meria eat more fish and visit the doctor less for the treatment of colds does not indicate that fish is conducive to prevent colds.
2.Even if one accept that eating more fish is the main reason for the low level of colds in East Meria, the experience may not adapt to West Meria.
3.Finally, granted that the forgoing assumes are both substantiate, whether the Ichthaid will lower absenteeism is still open to doubt.

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-638169-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 zhizi522 于 2007-3-30 13:01 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

support

freeatomUID: 2142222

支持