==不能下载的，负积分的同学请进（IELTS版专用灌水+加分）==

H-KevinUID: 2182070

（94年代初，美国前国务卿基辛格和加拿大的戈登带了大批的人员来中国调查。他们调查的结果非常可怕，他们认为人民币对美元是1/1，这是基辛格得出的结论。）
（戈登得出的结论是最多1/1.5)
(复旦大学经济学院的20多位老师，在上海市市长徐匡迪同志的领导下，独立进行了调查。对上海的物价和美国物价、世界上的物价做了一个调查。调查结果是最多1元美元对2.5的人民币。)

syh_goUID: 2181944

又不能下了。继续努力

syh_goUID: 2181944

努力努力

H-KevinUID: 2182070

AA七宗罪的记忆方法：因、果、证分析了两个晚上的AA，发现“七宗罪”确实是好东西，就是那些“罪”太多、而且过于零散，很难记忆。因此将七宗罪分类整理了一下，按照论证的原因、结果、论证过程三部分，归为三个类别：

因、果、证



1、因

就是原因上的问题，有以下三个：

可疑调查
样本不足
结论无据
2、果

就是结论上的问题，有以下两个：

无因果联系
二者择一
3、证

就是论证过程上的问题，有以下两个，纵向横向各一个：

错误类比（横向）
时地全等（纵向）


这样，只要记住了三字诀：因、果、证，就很容易记牢全部七宗罪了。

顺便分析一下本月JJ的一篇AA：

“Our total sales have increased this year by 20 percent since we added a pharmacy section to our

grocery store. Clearly, the customer’s main concern is the convenience afforded by one-stop

shopping. // 无因果联系，可能另有他因。 The surest way to increase our profits over the next couple

of years, therefore, is to add a clothing department along with an automotive supplies and repair

shop. We should also plan to continue adding new departments and services, such as a restaurant

and a garden shop, in subsequent years. // 时地全等 Being the only store in the area that offers such a range of services will give us a competitive advantage over other local stores.” // 结论无据


附：七宗罪

第一宗罪：无因果联系
The author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The line of the reasoning is that because A occurred before B, the former event is responsible for the latter. (The author uses the positive correlation between A and B to establish causality. However, the fact that A coincides with B does not necessarily prove that A caused B.) But this is fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps C is the cause of these events or perhaps B is caused by D.

第二宗罪 样本不足 Insufficient-sample
The evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. One example is logically unsounded to establish a general conclusion (The statistics from only a few recent years are not necessarily a good indicator of future trends), unless it can be shown that A1 is representative of all A. It is possible that.... In fact, in face of such limited evidence, the conclusion that B is completely unwarranted.

第三宗罪: 错误类比 (based on a false analogy )<横向>
The argument rests on the assumption that A is analogous to B in all respects. This assumption is weak, since although there are points of comparison between A and B, there is much dissimilarity as well. For example, A..., however, B.... Thus, it is likely much more difficult for B to do....

第四宗罪 时地全等 all things are equal<纵向>
The author commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”. The fact that happened two years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that.... The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. However, it is not clear in this argument whether the current conditions at AA are the same as they used to be two years ago. Thus it is impossible to conclude that....

第五宗罪 二者择一 Either-Or choice
The author assumes that AA and BB are mutually exclusive alternatives and there is no room for a middle ground. However, the author provides no reason for imposing an either-or choice. Common sense tells us that adjusting both AA and BB might produce better results.

第六宗罪 可疑调查 survey is doubtful
The poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or when, where and how the poll was conducted. (Lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if 200 persons were surveyed but only 2 responded, the conclusion that...would be highly suspect. Because the argument offers no evidence that would rule out this kind of interpretations,) Until these questions are answered, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.

第七宗罪 结论无据 gratuitous assumption
The author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that.... However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is more likely that.... Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility

wj_spaceUID: 2239540

我也是啊，还是老老实实回帖吧

echo215UID: 2366746

又来了

echo215UID: 2366746

很穷:mad

echo215UID: 2366746

还要加油

xzfutureUID: 2330464

要求加分。。。

Jackie.XuUID: 2370345

我也想加……

H-KevinUID: 2182070

Compass' new pamphlet may satisfy metropolitan liberal prejudices. But it offers little guidance for Labour's renewal
Compass, Neal Lawson’s pressure group cum thinktank, is in the process of setting out its stall as a source of supposedly lively and interesting ideas for the renewal of ‘the left’. The Good Society is the first of the three volumes (essentially extended essays) designed to put policy flesh on the bones of disillusion with the government.

Some of those involved, like Neal himself, were initially enthusiastic partisans of the New Labour project but now seem to have lost their faith. Reading The Good Society leaves one with the impression that Compass wish to disavow much that has happened since 1997 – or perhaps even since 1994. New Labour is seen as nothing more than ‘Continuity Thatcherism’, ameliorating the worst excesses but leaving the essential trajectory of policy untouched. ‘Neo-liberalism’, which might be better described as ‘the unconstrained free market’, is held responsible for all the evils of the world: increasing inequality, crime, bad jobs, poor health, childhood obesity, the abuse of the elderly, a rising tide of racism and the environmental despoliation of the planet. New Labour is found wanting in that the government has accepted far too much of the status quo and has conspicuously failed to develop a compelling vision of a better world.

Just how accurate is this picture and are Compass right in their diagnosis? We might start by observing that there is a strong whiff of Private Fraser about the text – ‘we’re all doomed!’ is the constant refrain. The government’s efforts since 1997 are either discounted as inadequate to the scale of the challenge or seen as little more than measures to con the electorate that there is no alternative to free markets and ‘globalisation’.

A more measured account would give the government credit for improvements in the incomes of the working poor, recognise that the progress made in reducing child poverty will improve social mobility and concede that the high level of policy activism has had some impact on inequality, with the technical measure of the Gini coefficient falling to a level last seen in 1987. Furthermore, a balanced assessment would embrace the idea that much the government has done is wholly inconsistent with the strictures of ‘neo-liberalism’ – increasing the minimum wage by 48 per cent over seven years, re-regulating the labour market, increasing taxes and investing in public services.

Tony Crosland pointed out that there was a puritanical tendency on the left that saw the consumption of material goods as in some way morally delinquent. The Good Society contains a good deal of this kind of thinking. Sure, consumption does not exhaust the full range of human desires and ambitions, but a degree of material comfort is not an expression of weakness and most people enjoy shopping.

Paul Gregg and his colleagues at Bristol University have shown that when the incomes of the poorest rise they use these additional resources to buy higher quality food and children’s clothes. For many families necessities continue to be a priority. But if the incomes of the poorest rise further we might reasonably anticipate that they too will increase their spending on fashion, gadgets and foreign holidays. It is easy for those who already have more than enough to preach the benefits of abstinence as the route to happiness, but those with less may feel that they are being both patronised and denied the opportunity to enjoy a more affluent lifestyle.

Perhaps the biggest problem with The Good Society is the starting point - New Labour as a ‘neo-liberal’ government, adapting people to markets rather than markets to people. In my view this is simply incorrect and fails to offer a subtle critique of what the government has got wrong (and right), which after all is what we need at this particularly fraught political moment.

It is far too easy to fall into the trap of a catastrophist narrative and in this the authors are in good company - after all, Karl Marx made the same mistake. But the world is neither as bleak, threatening or dysfunctional as the authors suggest. We may be confronted with challenges that would appear incomprehensible to earlier generations of social democrats - global warming is perhaps the best example - but many things have got better in the last 10 years, not least because we have had a Labour government in the UK.

While it is true, for example, that work got harder through to the middle 1990s, this phenomenon of ‘work intensification’ seems to have been halted. ‘Effort levels’, which were on a consistent upward trajectory to 1997, have stabilised since that time. Some people may be ‘time poor and overworked’ as The Good Society suggests, but the number of people working very long hours has fallen and more employees have access to flexible working arrangements.

Average job quality continues to improve. There are more skilled and well paid ‘knowledge jobs’ today than at any time in the past. Indeed, the most recent data show a fall in the number of really low paid jobs, which is a consequence of the national minimum wage and the tax credits system. We have more ‘good jobs’ too and more ‘room at the top’.

It is difficult to identify the sources of middle class economic insecurity that The Good Society identifies as significant cause of what they describe as our ‘social recession’. Job tenures (the length of time that people spend in a particular job) have been stable for the last 15 years, levels of job satisfaction have scarcely changed over the last eight years and perceived job insecurity has fallen according to the authoritative Workplace Employment Relations Survey, with one in six saying that they feel insecure.

This is not to suggest that there are no problems. We still have too many low paid workers, too many workless households, and too many children living in poverty. But the correct response to all these problems is to build on what has already been done, not to junk New Labour as an ideological cul-de-sac and return to some supposedly more authentic form of social democracy. We need more neighbourhood renewal programmes, more active labour market support, bigger fiscal transfers to families in poverty and a strategy to eliminate low pay that recognises the limits of the national minimum wage.

We also need to recognise that the quality of work is rising up the political agenda. In part this is a tribute to new Labour’s stewardship of the economy - two decades ago we were far more concerned about the quantity of work and the need to reduce unemployment. David Cameron has sought to colonise this territory by talking about ‘General Well-Being’ as well as GNP and we would be unwise to let him go unchallenged. This means that Labour must have an agenda that gives high priority to ‘good work’.

We need a story that links job satisfaction with high productivity and performance to a concern about the most disadvantaged doing ‘bad jobs’. We know for example that employment insecurity, an imbalance between effort and reward, a lack of control over the pace of work or key decisions in the workplace and a strong sense of injustice all have an impact on employees’ health. Simply put, those at the bottom of a status hierarchy are more likely to experience these phenomena, more likely to succumb to physical or mental illness and will almost certainly have shorter life expectancies than their better paid and higher status colleagues.

One point should be immediately clear - these problems do not lend themselves to a regulatory solution. But they do make clear that work is a public health issue to which the government must devote some attention. This is entirely consistent with the view expressed in The Good Society that health policy in the future must concentrate on prevention rather than cure. Government can make some progress simply by using its ‘bully pulpit’. Getting the issue onto the political agenda will invite a response from employers and trade unions.

Of course there are some simple regulatory interventions that can also have an impact - like the national minimum wage, some statutory obligations on employers to have proper discipline and grievance procedures or the proper implementation of the Health and Safety Executive’s Stress Management Standards. But much will depend on voluntary action by employers and government can, at most, play a supporting role. An important step would be to establish a national centre for best practice in work organisation and job design, collaborating with employers and trade unions to ensure that best practice is applied. Furthermore, the DTI could ensure that all its business support activities focused on small and medium-sized companies gave a high priority to questions about the quality of work, the effectiveness of management and the achievement of high productivity and performance.

According to the Workplace Employment Relations Survey, one of the principal causes of dissatisfaction with work is ‘lack of job influence’. Essentially workers are saying that they want more opportunities to shape the critical decisions that affect them most immediately. If we are serious about empowering citizens as the best route to a more egalitarian society then our commitment cannot stop at the threshold of the workplace. For want of a better expression we need to revive a debate about ‘industrial democracy’, about how we ensure that the rights to free speech and freedom of association are properly respected in a world where trade unions have largely disappeared from the private sector. In other words, New Labour must give much higher priority to workplace information and consultation institutions as essential policy instruments that can help to create and sustain more secure, worthwhile and fulfilling jobs. Nervousness about entering this territory, previously labelled ‘trade unions only’, will surrender the ground to David Cameron and leave the government looking flat-footed. We should be clear however that employers are unlikely to react with enthusiasm. The CBI will complain about the restriction of management prerogative and will complain about further ‘burdens on business’. The task, however, is to show that any such programme is unavoidable if we are to take work seriously as a social act and as a fully human activity rather than a purely economic transaction.

Our Compass friends understand this argument but when they should be bold they are timid and they are reckless when they should be cautious.

So far as job influence is concerned their proposal is that more organisations should introduce ‘quality circles’. Yet it is hard to see how an employer sponsored initiative designed to achieve alignment between individual aspirations and organisational goals can ever be a substitute for a robust workplace institution (like a works council), which guarantees that the collective voice of workers will be heard.

Another good example is the discussion of the living wage. This is fine as a soundbite but makes little sense as a practical proposal. No country in the world has the equivalent of a &pound;7.00 minimum wage and it would be absurd to deny that at some point minimum wages can adversely affect employment. Current government policy, as expressed in the famous Warwick Agreement, is packed full of useful ideas to tackle low pay. Surely the priority must be to get these commitments implemented rather than spend time constructing well-meaning policy proposals that could do more harm than good.

On balance, The Good Society is a fine account of why metropolitan liberals feel so uncomfortable in today’s world. The commitment to socialist transformation may have been dropped but the profound suspicion of capitalism (of whatever kind) and almost all markets remains. The best antidote to this middle class angst remains the revisionist cast of mind exemplified by Crosland’s Future of Socialism: a clear ideology, rooted in values and characterised by the belief that the pursuit of greater equality is the principal goal of social democracy, not because we value equality for its own sake but because we value agency and the ability to make choices about how we live our lives, choices which can be severely compromised by unequal life chances.

Viewed through this lens New Labour has made significant progress. The task now is to move the UK further in the direction of social democracy and to develop what Nick Pearce and Mike Dixon have described as a distinctive ‘Anglo-social model’ characterised by a high employment rate, investment in public services and further redistribution to the poorest families.

H-KevinUID: 2182070

AA七宗罪的记忆方法：因、果、证分析了两个晚上的AA，发现“七宗罪”确实是好东西，就是那些“罪”太多、而且过于零散，很难记忆。因此将七宗罪分类整理了一下，按照论证的原因、结果、论证过程三部分，归为三个类别：

因、果、证



1、因

就是原因上的问题，有以下三个：

可疑调查
样本不足
结论无据
2、果

就是结论上的问题，有以下两个：

无因果联系
二者择一
3、证

就是论证过程上的问题，有以下两个，纵向横向各一个：

错误类比（横向）
时地全等（纵向）


这样，只要记住了三字诀：因、果、证，就很容易记牢全部七宗罪了。

H-KevinUID: 2182070

谁水贴不水在外面水 :mad  :mad

godbabyUID: 2347067

这样的救命好贴刚刚看到，狂激动ing！！！

godbabyUID: 2347067

楼主斑竹有没有大幅度赚积分的好办法啊？？我现在想积分想疯了！！