Argument97 [0806G-奋斗小组]第十次作业 求拍!（拍必回）

神奇的光UID: 2398821

Argument97：The following appeared in a memo from the manager of television station KICK.

"A nationwide survey reveals that a sizeable majority of men would like to see additional sports programs on television. After television station WACK increased its sports broadcasts, its share of the television audience in its viewing area almost doubled. To gain a larger audience share in our area, and thus increase company profits, KICK should also revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage."

字数：396
    In this memo, the author concludes that in order to increase its profits, television station KICK should broadcast more sports programs. To support this recommendation, the author points out that WACK, another television station, doubled its share of audience after increasing its sports broadcast, and the author also cites a survey which reveals that the majority of men would like to see more sports programs on TV. However, close scrutiny reveals that this argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the author provides no substantial evidence that the survey’s results are reliable. In order to bolster this argument, the survey’s sample must be sufficient in size and representative of overall populations of men. Lacking evidence of a sufficient sample, the author cannot justifiably rely on the survey to draw any conclusion whatsoever.
     Secondly, the author unfairly attributes the increasing in WACK’s share of audience to its more sports broadcasts. However, the speaker provides no evidence to support this assumption. Maybe WACK broadcasted other compelling programs while broadcasting more sports programs and it is entirely possible that the majority of audience watched other programs other than sports. Without ruling out other possible explanations for the rising of WACK’s share of audience, the author cannot conclude that the broadcasting of sports programs is responsible for such rising.
Thirdly, even assuming that it is the sports programs that promoting WACK’s share of audience in its viewing area, the author’s recommendation that KICK should also broadcast more sports programs to promote its profits relies on another assumption that the residents in KICK’s viewing area also enjoy watching sports on television. Maybe the residents prefer to watch sports in a stadium rather than at home, or even they don’t like watching sports as much as those living in WACK’s viewing area. If so, KICK may not increase its profits by including more sports programs.
     In conclusion, the argument is flawed in several critical respects, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands. In order to strengthen it, the author must provide clear evidence that the survey’s results are statistically reliable, and that it is sports programs that led to WACK’s more sharing of television audience in its viewing area. The author must also provide substantial evidence that the residents in KICK’s viewing area also enjoy watching sports programs on TV.

seafish0426UID: 2407075

In this memo, the author concludes that in order to increase its profits, television station KICK should broadcast more sports programs. To support this recommendation, the author points out that WACK, another television station, doubled its share of audience after increasing its sports broadcast, and the author also cites a survey which reveals that the majority of men would like to see more sports programs on TV.（个人觉得这里应该把WACK的例子和survey颠倒一下，因为原文的顺序是先survey后用WACK的例子的） However, close scrutiny reveals that this argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the author provides no substantial evidence that the survey’s results are reliable. In order to bolster this argument, the survey’s sample must be sufficient in size and representative of overall populations of men. Lacking evidence of a sufficient sample, the author cannot justifiably rely on the survey to draw any conclusion whatsoever.
     Secondly, the author unfairly attributes the increasing in WACK’s share of audience to its more sports broadcasts. However（个人认为这里没有转折的意思）, the speaker provides no evidence to support this assumption. Maybe WACK broadcasted other compelling programs while broadcasting more sports programs and it is entirely possible that the majority of audience watched other programs other （rather）than sports. Without ruling out other possible explanations for the rising of WACK’s share of audience, the author cannot conclude that the broadcasting of sports programs is responsible for such rising.
Thirdly, even assuming that it is the sports programs that promoting WACK’s share of audience in its viewing area, the author’s recommendation that KICK should also broadcast more sports programs to promote its profits relies on another assumption that the residents in KICK’s viewing area also enjoy watching sports on television.（这一句语法上没有错误，但是读起来有些不流畅) Maybe the residents prefer to watch sports in a stadium rather than at home, or even they don’t like watching sports as much as those living in WACK’s viewing area. If so, KICK may not increase its profits by including more sports programs.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed in several critical respects, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands. In order to strengthen it, the author must provide clear evidence that the survey’s results are statistically reliable, and that it is sports programs that led to WACK’s more sharing of television audience in its viewing area. The author must also provide substantial evidence that the residents in KICK’s viewing area also enjoy watching sports programs on TV.
第一次改，只看到这么多了。总体说感觉不错，关键的地方都批了，语言也很好。^_^


题目：ARGUMENT2 - The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.
"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."
字数：453         用时：上午 01:00:00          日期：2007-10-31
In this letter, the arguer suggests to adopt their own set of restrications on landscaping and housepainting to raise property value in Deerhaven Acres. To  support this claim, the arguer cites the example of Brookville community which adopted a set of restrictions on tlandscaping and housepainting as well as the raise of average property values. At the first glance, it seems a wise suggestion for the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres to gain more benefits, but after a meticulous  reflection, we will find several flaws in this letter.
Firstly, the argument relies on might be a false analogy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville community. The arguer assumes that adopt the same restrictions on landscaping and housepainting as Brookville will increase the profits, but a basic problem is ignored that Whether these two communities have the totally same condition. It is possible that Brookville community locates in the region that owns the convenient transport and mild climate, which attract more people to settle down and bring more benefits to triple the property values. In contrast, maybe Deerhaven Acres's position is not as good as Brookville's and no one would be attracted.  In this case, even though all the homeowners adopt the rectrictions on landscaping and housepainting, it will still not bring any profits as the arguer expected.
Secondly, the arguer fails to provides substantive evidence to show that adoption of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is the direct reason why the average propety values have tripled in Brookville. The arguer opinionate attributes the raise of property values to the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. But there might be some other reasons lead to the raise of the property values in Brookville. Maybe there are some new highways built in this region and make the transport here more convenient, maybe there is a new park constructed nearby this community and many people think it is easy to take an exercise and good for the health, Maybe they would not consider the landscaping and the housepainting, let alone attributing the raise of the property values to them.
Moreover, the fect that average property values have tripled in Brookville is not representative. There is only an average raise of property values offers in the argument, which not mean that all the property values have tripled. The arguer overlooks the possibility that some of the property values have tripled but some others haven't, and even reduced. If so, the adoption of restriction on landscaping and housepinting is useless for the increase of property values.
In sum, the arguer's suggestion is based on a series of assumptions and there is no convincing evidence provides to justify all these assumptions. To better this suggestion, more information are needed to be shown.
谢谢啦

神奇的光UID: 2398821

In this letter, the arguer suggests to（suggest后不能直接加to） adopt their own set of restrications on landscaping and housepainting to raise property value in Deerhaven Acres. To  support this claim, the arguer cites the example of Brookville community which adopted a set of restrictions on tlandscaping and housepainting as well as the raise of average property values(这个as well as用得不妥,不妨这样写：and the property value in Brookville had rised since then)At the(不要the) first glance, it seems a wise suggestion for the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres to gain more benefits, but after a meticulous  reflection, we will find several flaws in this letter.
Firstly, the argument relies on might be a false(relaies on a possibly false) analogy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville community. The arguer assumes that adopt(adopting) the same restrictions on landscaping and housepainting as Brookville (did) will increase the profits(最好指名是its property profits,这不会有啰嗦的嫌疑), but a basic problem is ignored that Whether these two communities have the totally（completely）same condition. It is possible that Brookville community locates in the region that owns the convenient transport and mild climate, which attract more people to settle down and bring more benefits to triple the(最好说its) property values. In contrast, maybe Deerhaven Acres's position is not as good as Brookville's and no one(太绝对了，请用few prople) would be attracted.  In this case, even though all the homeowners adopt the rectrictions on landscaping and housepainting, it will still not bring any profits as the arguer expected.
Secondly, the arguer fails to provides（provide any）substantive (substantial)evidence to show that adoption of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is the direct reason why the average propety values have tripled in Brookville. The arguer opinionate(这个opinionate是什么意思？我的电子字典里没有) attributes the raise of property values(一定要加上In Brookville)to the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. But there might be some other reasons lead to the raise of the property values in Brookville(lead to such rise). Maybe there are some new highways built in this region and make the transport here more convenient, maybe there is a new park constructed nearby this community and many people think it is easy to take an exercise and good for the health, Maybe they would not consider the landscaping and the housepainting, let alone attributing the raise of the property values to them.
Moreover, the fect(fact) that average property values have tripled in Brookville is not representative(在北美范文里，这个representative是在攻击调查的样本的可信度是才用的，假如一个调查的样本不充分，我们就可以说：The survey’s sample is not statistically representative.但这个词不应用在本文中) There is only an average raise of property values offers in the argument, which not mean( doesn’t guarantee这么说比较地道) that all the property values have tripled. The arguer overlooks the possibility that some of the property values have tripled but some others haven't, and even reduced. If so, the adoption of restriction on landscaping and housepinting is useless for the increase of property values.
In sum, the arguer's suggestion is based on a series of assumptions and there is no convincing evidence provides(provided) to justify all these assumptions. To better(这里应加上evaluate) this suggestion, more information are needed to be(还应该具体说一下是哪些information,这样说不是重复啰嗦，而是很有用的，一来避免虎头蛇尾，二来可以起到总结全文的作用，记得一定要加上噢^_^） shown.

总结一下：你的第二个论据是说the rise in Brookville未必是由restrictions导致，第一个论据是说由于Brookville和Deerhaven Acres情况不同，因此restrictions可能对Deerhaven Acres不适用，根据逻辑关系，你应该将这两个论据的顺序颠倒一下。还有，你的第三个论据不具有说服力，因此事实上只批驳了题目的2处逻辑纰漏，要想argument拿高分，必须指出至少3个逻辑错误才行。下面再给出原题的另外2处逻辑错误：Brookville的多数居民可能并未实行这些restrictions，因此不能将Brookville的成功归因于这些restrictions；实行这些restrictions不一定是Deerhaven Acres实现目标的唯一办法，或许Deerhaven Acres可以通过其它途径实现目标。
最后对你对我文章的修改表示感谢，让我们一起进步。

[ 本帖最后由 神奇的光 于 2007-11-1 23:23 编辑 ]

筱雪UID: 2314781

呃...我是二楼的,按照顺序是改你的...不过你已经有人改过啦.而且改得挺细

我就提点自己的看法吧----就觉得第二段略有点空，力度不够，虽然是司空见惯的错误，但再多一点有力的论证过程可能会更饱满:)

恩,就说这点吧,其他感觉都挺好的~

筱雪UID: 2314781

呃...我是二楼的,按照顺序是改你的...不过你已经有人改过啦.而且改得挺细

我就提点自己的看法吧----就觉得第二段略有点空，力度不够，虽然是司空见惯的错误，但再多一点有力的论证过程可能会更饱满:)

恩,就说这点吧,其他感觉都挺好的~

liyue24UID: 2350787

恕冒昧，小小建议：
first of all只有4行可是secondly却相当于first的两倍多的篇幅？！……

奋斗组这次的作业都是argument97，这个题目我分析是这样的：

目的是说要改变现有电视台的播放节目计划，多播放体育类节目。两个证据来支持作者的建议：1)全国范围的调查；2)W电视台的经验；分别具体讨论如下：

1）全国范围的调查。虽然有很多争议说调查是否要批驳，这里显然是作为一项重要支撑，不批驳是不可能的了。但是关键是再看怎么批驳。当然可以套用模板，比如调查的范围是否覆盖够广泛，调查的问题是否带有倾向性，调查的时间没有给出等等等……可是这样的批驳和本文是否有十足的关系？个人感觉，最关键的是，一项全国范围的调查被应用到K的一个地区，这个是一个逻辑的推理和扩展过程。作者潜意识就认为“全国的结果是表示每个地区都是这样的”。很显然这是个错误。

2）W电视台的经验。这里有两种分析，一是W的经验是否可信，二是W的经验是否可以照搬。可以选择分开写也可写道一段。不多罗嗦了。

此外，我还特别注意到一点：文中把收视率和公司利润联系起来。这是一种逻辑关联，但是却有可能是一种纰漏。当然大部分情况下收视率提高了可能利润就会增加，不过这并不是必然的联系。

至于如何组织全文，that's a little tricky here. :) 两项证据的支持随便可以怎样列举，但是要和首段里面陈述的顺序一致为佳。（当然如果首段先说survey然后说more ridiculous或是怎样突出W的那项，就另当别论了。）总之文章要和首段能有呼应。并不见得说两个evidence有哪个重要哪个不重要一说，也应该说不存在哪种逻辑错误更严重，哪个比较轻，因为毕竟原文argument中也没有说what's more important 这样的句子。

my 2 cents:)         希望能和大家讨论。:handshake

神奇的光UID: 2398821

原帖由 liyue24 于 2007-11-1 23:53 发表
个人感觉，最关键的是，一项全国范围的调查被应用到K的一个地区，这个是一个逻辑的推理和扩展过程。作者潜意识就认为“全国的结果是表示每个地区都是这样的”。很显然这是个错误。

谢谢指出，我太疏忽了，没想到这点。太感谢了！

liyue24UID: 2350787

不客气～ 大家讨论才能进步。:handshake

我也是看了你们组里几个人的习作，发现这里是大家共有的一个地方。

针对survey的攻击应该说是难度比较高的，一旦攻击不好就会偏离主题，甚至成为“泼妇”。所以组队习作的好处就是可以大家讨论，取长补短。

liyue24UID: 2350787

原帖由 神奇的光 于 2007-11-1 23:11 发表
还有，你的第三个论据不具有说服力，因此事实上只批驳了题目的2处逻辑纰漏，要想argument拿高分，必须指出至少3个逻辑错误才行。

似乎ETS没有说“要想拿高分，必须指出至少三个逻辑错误”的说法……

神奇的光UID: 2398821

北美范文里这么说的(第11页)

筱雪UID: 2314781

[quote]原帖由 liyue24 于 2007-11-2 10:12 发表


针对survey的攻击应该说是难度比较高的，一旦攻击不好就会偏离主题，甚至成为“泼妇”.

的确是啊!现在恍然大悟了!呵呵

筱雪UID: 2314781

[quote]原帖由 liyue24 于 2007-11-2 10:12 发表


针对survey的攻击应该说是难度比较高的，一旦攻击不好就会偏离主题，甚至成为“泼妇”.

的确是啊!现在恍然大悟了!呵呵

liyue24UID: 2350787

同样，我也回答了你自己习作里面的那个问题。是否要按照“逻辑错误的轻重”来组织文章。  :)

筱雪UID: 2314781

原帖由 liyue24 于 2007-11-2 10:12 发表

针对survey的攻击应该说是难度比较高的，一旦攻击不好就会偏离主题，甚至成为“泼妇”。所以组 ...

是啊!!我也偏离了!!呵呵