arugment38 by tuexy.xiaojie

Tuexy.qiuUID: 2350973

arugment38 by tuexy.xiaojie
写得特长的一作文，感觉好极了。和大家分享。。
TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 782                  DATE: 2007-7-19 9:01:29

The focus of the argument above is about the absenteeism and eating a substantial amount. As the study of East Meria (be near of West Meria ) reports that people visit doctor not frequently, then the speaker conclude that fish can prevent colds, furthermore, recommend the daily use of lchthaid, which keep eater be escaped of cold, to low the ratio of absence as he/ or she think that the cold is the main reason of absenteeism. Maybe, the lchthaid is a well salutary food for health, however, while applied to a "drug" for decreasing the proportion of absence occurred in workplace and school, it wouldn't be that enough. It is too obviously to find other potential but more important factors or elementariness that lead to the epidemic of it. As to debate comprehensive, I will reveal the intrinsic logical flaws in the argument acclaim by the speaker and what is the most important reason or reasons in absence occurrence.

My first and more direct response to the argument's logic flaws is whether the study of East Meria(EM) can accordingly applied to the West Meria(WM) merely based on the a fact that they are "neighbors" in territory. Well, the further doubt on this study is that it doesn't indict us why or whether the fish consumption is responsible to reduce absenteeism, otherwise, it presents the possible parallel relationship between the fish and the health. As to our commonsense, the world is difference, as a example, in Chinese old fable, a sane said, the "Zhu" in south is called the "Yu", while it in the north, it was named "You", though the study here is justly cited as a compare between two "nearby" places, we can also point out that we can't "transplantation" the study from EM to WM. I was confused with why the council doesn’t cite a local survey regarding the local situation. According to the next doubt, I was also confused with that the speaker didn't show us the relation between the absences with fish eating. No matter it is right or wrong that eating fish can reduce the illness, we need what here is that if the fish is effective to prevent colds, then reduce absence. Apparently, the speaker didn't catch the essential to causing the absence, though he/she are aware at the potential relationship aimed to health and fish consumption. Summing this passage, we may find that the speaker is losing in regarding the difference and the reasoning both of the pursuit and studies imply. Naturally, if the speaker provides the accurate picture of WM, or sufficient evidences in similarity between WM and EM, the argument will stand in a more logic places.

On another hand, I even believe my eyes that the colds is the idea that prevent colds can lead to lower absenteeism. Admittedly, colds especially in winter or other cold days are the main reason for absenteeism. However, would you like to believe that it does is the dominate reason leading to absenteeism. At least, we should firstly question at the absented students or employee's excuse, as they want to not be publish for their supervisors or leaders, they have not but to forge an evidence for their sloth, their having-not-responsibility and so forth. It may be the absented ones didn't published as the forge reason of cold, and then growing lazy persons give the some reason to win their absence. Then, although the recommendation of daily using of lchthaid is succeeded in preventing colds, a lower absenteeism wouldn't appear. And of course, there are additionally logical foibles in the using of lchthaid. As we don't understand which part or chemistry is crucial for the colds preventing in fish, although lchthaid is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, we can't arbitrarily acclaim that it will work efficiently.

And deep down, it is easily to find that the absence is a main individual consciousness issues. Those who don't like working, studying, are more possible inclined to be absence. To these persons, after they are well in fish supply, their "colds" will change to other ones, or even "hot". So as to begin to prosecute the measure recommended by the speaker, we should firstly assure those persons not to make excuses and begin to like their learning and occupation. Inevitably, such an intangible material is far difficult to the recommender's proposal.

According to above, the speaker doesn't convince me in his evidence providing, the relation between colds and absenteeism revealing. According to those deficiencies, if he/she can persuade me the study tell the truth that the fish and Ichthaid is mostly responsible of keeping temperature and further reducing absence, then the recommendation should put into practice.

[ 本帖最后由 Tuexy.qiu 于 2007-7-19 11:02 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

The focus of the argument above is about the absenteeism and eating a substantial amount.(eating what? 这个表达太笼统了, 起码把作者眼中它们的关系说清楚吧) As the study of East Meria (be near of West Meria ) reports that people visit doctor not frequently, then the speaker conclude that fish can prevent colds(这里也把作者的因果忽略了, 吃鱼那个环节哪去了?), furthermore, recommend the daily use of lchthaid, which keep eater be escaped of cold, to low the ratio of absence as he/ or she think that the cold is the main reason of absenteeism. Maybe, the lchthaid is a well salutary food for health, however, while applied to a "drug" for decreasing the proportion of absence occurred in workplace and school, it wouldn't be that enough. It is too obviously to find other potential but more important factors or elementariness that lead to the epidemic of it. (怎么第一段就开始找错误了? 而且要找的话应该找全作为引领全文的初步解释, 但你这里又没找全, 使这两句话显得画蛇添足) As to debate comprehensive, I will reveal the intrinsic logical flaws in the argument acclaim by the speaker and what is the most important reason or reasons in absence occurrence.

My first and more direct response to the argument's logic flaws is whether the study of East Meria(EM) can accordingly applied to the West Meria(WM) merely based on the a fact that they are "neighbors" in territory. Well, the further doubt on this study is that it doesn't indict us why or whether the fish consumption is responsible to reduce absenteeism,(这句跟前一句完全不是一个攻击点, 为何写到一段? 而且没有两个分别跟自己的论证, 相反却并列提出, 这样使你的文章组织会很麻烦) otherwise, it presents the possible parallel relationship between the fish and the health(这里的两句话何来otherwise的关系? 吃鱼与缺席的关系如果没疑问了就能证明鱼和健康么? 应该反过来吧). As to our commonsense, the world is difference, as a example, in Chinese old fable, a sane said, the "Zhu" in south is called the "Yu", while it in the north, it was named "You",(这个类比基本没有意义, 别人也可以攻击你China和EM及WM地区没有可比性, 这种细节化的例证在ARGUMENT中可用性非常小) though the study here is justly cited as a compare between two "nearby" places, we can also point out that we can't "transplantation" the study from EM to WM. I was confused with why the council doesn’t cite a local survey regarding the local situation.(说了半天其实没有提供可靠的论证: 为什么二地没有可比性? 人种差异, 饮食差异, 地区气候差异等等, 需要分析这种原因才能说明两地的情况不能参考, 而不是说中国哪哪不一样, 另外这个论证应该是建立在让步在EM的人吃鱼能健康基础之上的, 这个不成立那么类比两地也没什么意义.) According to the next doubt, I was also confused with that the speaker didn't show us the relation between the absences with fish eating.(这个也没意义, 你都说了两地没有可比性了, 那么说EM的人吃鱼和缺席的关系自然没有意义, 那就得说WM的人吃鱼和缺席的关系, 问题是你怎么知道这两个就有关系或者没关系呢? 很可能这里就没人吃鱼所以不能研究这种关系, 而且没人吃和很多人缺席也没啥关系, 可能这些人还有别的东西不吃, 总之提出这个建议并不能证明你的论点) No matter it is right or wrong that eating fish can reduce the illness, we need what here is that if the fish is effective to prevent colds, then reduce absence. Apparently, the speaker didn't catch the essential to causing the absence, though he/she are aware at the potential relationship aimed to health and fish consumption. Summing this passage, we may find that the speaker is losing in regarding the difference and the reasoning both of the pursuit and studies imply. Naturally, if the speaker provides the accurate picture of WM, or sufficient evidences in similarity between WM and EM, the argument will stand in a more logic places.
这段你把好几个错误揉在一次说了, 导致论证目标不明确, 看下来没有哪个点被充分地说到, 提供的论据也很混乱.
我们来理下作者的论证逻辑:
EM的人很少去医院->EM的人健康条件好
EM的人健康条件好+EM的人老吃鱼-> 吃鱼能防止感冒
吃鱼能防止感冒+鱼油中有ICHTHAID->I能防止感冒
I能防止感冒->WM的人吃了I能减少感冒
WM的人吃了I能减少感冒+感冒经常被当缺席的原因->为了防止缺席, WM的人们应该多吃I

理清了作者的逻辑再逐条批驳才能有效论证, 从而把每条都说清楚, 而不是凭意识找到哪个错误说哪个, 觉得这个错误不好单独说于是让步另外一个错误, 这样你的让步就显得很不明确, 接下来的论证也会变得混乱. 倒不是我打击你, 字数并不是评判AW好坏的标准, 这篇文章要充分攻击的话写1000字都不算多, 但前提要找好攻击点一步步来


On another hand, I even believe my eyes that the colds is the idea that prevent colds can lead to lower absenteeism. Admittedly, colds especially in winter or other cold days are the main reason for absenteeism.(你这个让步不但没有论据支持, 而且也无利于你的论证, 相反主题句后让步还会让人感觉本段的论证方向不明确) However, would you like to believe that it does is the dominate reason leading to absenteeism.(Why not?) At least, we should firstly question at the absented students or employee's excuse, as they want to not be publish for their supervisors or leaders, they have not but to forge an evidence for their sloth, their having-not-responsibility and so forth. It may be the absented ones didn't published as the forge reason of cold, and then growing lazy persons give the some reason to win their absence. (这里上来就说学生雇员懒也是攻击没有指向, 先说明被作为借口就不代表真的发生, 然后给出其它可能性使得作者的推论不成立是一般的ARGUMENT论证顺序) Then, although (even if.. 你这么写等于承认I能降低感冒了? 让步需要用假设语气) the recommendation of daily using of lchthaid is succeeded in preventing colds, a lower absenteeism wouldn't appear. And of course, there are additionally logical foibles in the using of lchthaid. (没必要又返回去说这个问题) As we don't understand which part or chemistry is crucial for the colds preventing in fish, although lchthaid is a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, we can't arbitrarily acclaim that it will work efficiently.(这完全又是另外一个攻击点了, 不应该放这段里说)

And deep down, it is easily to find that the absence is a main individual consciousness issues. Those who don't like working, studying, are more possible inclined to be absence.(这个跟上一段不是一个意思么?? 感冒不是真正原因和降低感冒能阻止缺席, 二者是同一意思的不同表达) To these persons, after they are well in fish supply, their "colds" will change to other ones, or even "hot". So as to begin to prosecute the measure recommended by the speaker, we should firstly assure those persons not to make excuses and begin to like their learning and occupation. Inevitably, such an intangible material is far difficult to the recommender's proposal.(这段跟上一段最大的区别就是在列举它因的时候无证据的假设了存在一群成天以感冒为借口不想去上班的人, how can you demonstrate such a situation exists?)

According to above, the speaker doesn't convince me in his evidence providing, the relation between colds and absenteeism revealing. According to those deficiencies, if he/she can persuade me the study tell the truth that the fish and Ichthaid is mostly responsible of keeping temperature and further reducing absence, then the recommendation should put into practice.

总评: 文章的最大问题在于结构组织上, 这个问题不解决其它的论证都显得无力而混乱。不知道你准备的过程如何但现在看来。
建议看下北美范文，比起官方范文北美的套路更明确结构也更清楚，相应的比较容易模仿。
而有关这道题可以再看下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)   
我之前的习作，以供参考 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=577778&highlight=

Tuexy.qiuUID: 2350973

:) ，非常感谢你。我一定认真学习。
一定。

James.fkUID: 2594976

3# Tuexy.qiu


分析很透彻啊，不过这篇字数怎么这多

少一点应该也没什么关系吧