argument33 [kb 9.11 小组]第一次作业

对酒当歌UID: 2210051

33
                  未限时， 写的很烂，请狠批。 请帮我看一下有下划线的  to  应不应该用to呢， 总感觉不合适。
                                      The writer asserts that, the pots were spread by the makers who had migrated to a new place after childhood. The reason for whichthe writer supports the point of view is that a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with the migration, and huge numbers of bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. To this argument, I think, there are three shortages of the writer’s view.
             Firstly, the writer assumes the metallic element existed only in the food in the places where the makers had spent their childhood. This is an important premise. In the report, the writer totally denies the existence of the metallic element in the sites where the pots were exhumed. But, there is no evidence to support this view. If the metal had indeed existed in the sites where the pots were exhumed, we can’t assert where the makers are from, and we can’t deduce further that the pots are spread by the migration. As the writer said, that the certain metallic element is contained in various foods, so, it is hard to neglect that the sites where the pots were found had no such kinds of food.
             Secondly, the writer thought that many of the bones found near the pots which showed high levels of the metallic element was an evidence to prove that the pots were spread by migration. Even the premise was established, we can’t assert that the migrations had made or owned the pots first. We can arguer with the writer that, may be the pots were owned by the local people by trade first, and then they sold them to the migrations. So, there was not a causal association between the bones and the spreader of the pots.
               Thirdly, assume that, the two assumptions were significative, then it seems that , we can assert that the bones, which were found  near the pots and showed high levels of the metallic element suggest that the pots were spread by the migrations. But as the writer mentioned, the bones near the pots were found at a few places. No one can be sure how were the pots spread when they were found without the bones. The writer totally denied other factors which could possibly be active to the spread of the pots.
               In sum, the writer’s conclusion is based on an uncertain premise. To prove the conclusion, the write should get compelling evidence to convince that in that time, the food with the metallic element was only made in the places where the pots and the bones were found.
Then the writer should prove that the bones with high levels of metallic element found near the pots shows that, the migrations owned the pots first. Moreover the write should investigate to deny the other factors such as trade. Then the assertion can be believable.



提纲：A3：
1：thepremise of the assertion is doubtful. No evidence can support that thegraduations’ choice depends on thesatisfaction of the work experiments. Is there any other reasons?
2: What does the so-called satisfaction involve?
3: the first-year students’ attitude do not closelyassociated with the choice of the graduations.
A11:
!: Whether the amount of material recycled increaseshas no consequential connection  to thelonger period of the available      spacein the landfill is doubtful.
2   Thepercentage of the amount of aluminum and paper which was used as material isunknown.
3  As thewriter mentions, the prediction was made two years ago, has the speed withwhich the landfill changed?
4   Is thesurvey authoritative?







[ 本帖最后由 对酒当歌 于 2007-8-15 23:45 编辑 ]

goldzincUID: 2378390

The writer asserts that,(不要逗号) the pots were spread by the makers who had migrated to a new place after childhood. The reason (for whichthe writer supports the point of view都不要) is that a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with the migration, and huge numbers of bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. To this argument, I think, there are three shortages of the writer’s view.
Firstly, the writer assumes (that) the metallic element existed only in the food in the places where the makers had spent their childhood. This is an important premise. In the report, the writer totally denies the existence of the metallic element in the sites where the pots were exhumed. (没有否认元素的存在啊，作者是说的在一些发现pots的地方同样发现了含有很高元素的骨头。而且这句话与后面矛盾)  But, there is no evidence to support this view. If the metal had indeed existed in the sites where the pots were exhumed, we can’t assert where the makers are from, and we can’t deduce further that the pots are spread by the migration.(“在pots出土处存在元素”和”不能断言制作者的出处”之间不是假设关系，如果有关系也是让步关系，应该用even though链接，”不能断言制作者的出处”也不存在必然关系”pots are spread by the migration”) As the writer said, that the certain metallic element is contained in various foods, so, it is hard to neglect that the sites where the pots were found had no such kinds of food.(这句并没有说出such kinds of food和migration有什么关系，建议去掉)
（段首句应该是Topic Sentence，要直接指出作者的错误，后文围绕着段首句写。）
Secondly, the writer thought that many of the bones found near the pots which showed high levels of the metallic element was an evidence to prove that the pots were spread by migration. Even the premise was established(这个成立不能这么用…… 你可以说Even the premise was true), we cannot assert that the migrations(migratory) had made or owned the pots first. We can argue with the writer that, may be the pots were owned by the local people by trade first, and then they sold them to the migrations. So, there was not a causal association between the bones and the spreader of the pots.
Thirdly, assume that, the two assumptions were significative(significant), then it seems that , we can assert that the bones, which were found  near the pots and showed high levels of the metallic element(,) suggest that the pots were spread by the migrations. But as the writer mentioned, the bones near the pots were found at a few places. No one can be sure how were the pots spread when they were found without the bones. The writer totally denied other factors which could possibly be active to the spread of the pots.
In sum, the writer’s conclusion is based on an uncertain premise. To prove the conclusion, the write should get compelling evidence to convince that in that time, the food with the metallic element was only made in the places where the pots and the bones were found.(不要换行)
Then the writer should prove that the bones with high levels of metallic element found near the pots shows that, the migrations owned the pots first. Moreover the write should investigate to deny the other factors such as trade. Then the assertion can be believable.


1. 你把小组的名字写错了！！
2. 每段开头不要空格直接写
3.每个逻辑错误的批驳过程不够严密，语言通顺程度不理想，建议多读多背范文。

wuyeUID: 2348444

                     The writer asserts that, the pots were spread by the makers who had migrated to a new place after childhood. The reason for whichthe writer supports the point of view is that a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with the migration, and huge numbers of bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element. To this argument, I think, there are three shortages of the writer’s view.（其实倒装把成分塞回去就知道了嘛！ I insist 用 in）             Firstly, the writer assumes the metallic element existed only in the food in the places where the makers had spent their childhood. This is an important premise.（这句是干什么的呢？）In the report, the writer totally denies the existence of the metallic element in the sites where the pots were exhumed. But, there is no evidence to support this view. If the metal had indeed existed in the sites where the pots were exhumed, we can’t assert where the makers are from, and we can’t deduce further that the pots are spread by the migration. As the writer said, that the certain metallic element is contained in various foods, so, it is hard to neglect that the sites where the pots were found had no such kinds of food.
             Secondly, the writer thought that many of the bones found near the pots which showed high levels of the metallic element was an evidence to prove that the pots were spread by migration. Even the premise was established（是说“假设成立”的意思么，但好像没有这么说的，但我也不知道这种形式怎么说，建议换种好驾驭的句子来表达）, we can’t assert that the migrations had made or owned the pots first. We can arguer with the writer that, may be the pots were owned by the local people by trade first, and then they sold them to the migrations. So, there was not a causal association (relationship ) between the bones and the spreader of the pots.
               Thirdly, assume that, the two assumptions were significative, then it seems that , we can assert that the bones, which were found  near the pots and showed high levels of the metallic element suggest that the pots were spread by the migrations. But as the writer mentioned, the bones near the pots were found at a few places. No one can be sure how were the pots spread when they were found without the bones. The writer totally denied other factors which could possibly be active (responsible) to the spread of the pots.
               In sum, the writer’s conclusion is based on an uncertain premise. To prove the conclusion, the write should get compelling evidence to convince that in that time, the food with the metallic element was only made in the places where the pots and the bones were found. Then the writer should prove that the bones with high levels of metallic element found near the pots shows that, the migrations owned the pots first. Moreover the write should investigate to deny the other factors such as trade. Then the assertion can be believable. (结尾太冗繁，简之，精炼一点，不一定要面面俱到)

总评：
       结构完整清晰（看来也是北美路子）
       句式多边，看得出很喜欢用“ ... , ... , ... ” 的句式~
       说理的时候再precise and concise 一点，句子拉长~


[ 本帖最后由 wuye 于 2007-8-15 23:57 编辑 ]

对酒当歌UID: 2210051

感谢两位的诚恳建议。
确实发现了，自己写的巨资到后来自己都看不懂了，看来，宁愿让句幼稚一些，也要表达清楚

[ 本帖最后由 对酒当歌 于 2007-8-16 00:27 编辑 ]