我的一些关于argument的问题+习作argument187

lsjaneUID: 2415613

TOPIC: ARGUMENT187 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine.
首先是题目的分析，我认为这一点是关键，我自己的理解是，拿到题目首先要找到结论，然后找文章支持结论的理由，然后针对每一个理由进行反驳。后来又看到一些帖子，说是我们往往走入一个困境，那就是只会针对一些理由本身批，却忽略了关键的从理由到结论这一过程的错误，而这才是 ets考察的关键。比如说，我们批三无survey，就说它不具randomness, representative，而这些都不是关键性的错误。所以我想请前辈根据这些疑惑帮我看看我的文章，到底如何针对过程批驳，那些文章给出的前提到底要不要批（或者说argument里面有没有前提），谢谢指教~

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. （比如这样一句话，我把它看做文章的前提条件吗？就是说我是针对这件事本身，批驳这种无根据无理由的对前人经受压力的推测是错的；还是批驳这种前人经受少的压力得到现代人也应象他们那样吃acid这一过程的错误？这个推测本身的正确性到底要不要批？）Moreover, modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan-that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression.（这句话应该是结论吧~）"
WORDS: 377          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-12-21 11:05:24

The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By citing a recent study of omega-3 fatty acids, comparing ancestors with current people and the U.S with Japan and Taiwan, the author suggest all people in the U.S should take fish to decrease depression without persuasive evidence. I will discuss each of the facets in details.
我曾经仔细读过imong三部曲，也看过网上的一些帖子。发现原来的模版开头方式完全就是背景介绍形式，于是又读了官方范文的开头，然后自己总结了几种情况。上面的是其中一种，不知道是否合适，能不能起到TS的作用。

To begin with, the author unwarrantedly confuses the correlation with causation. Just because omega-3 fatty acids plays a key role in mental health we cannot easily get the conclusion that lack of the acids will cause mental problems or we should complement more omega-3 fatty acids to keep mental healthy. Without clear evidence about the causal relationship between the two, the author cannot confidently draw any conclusion based on the relationship, not to mention the final suggestion that every one take fish to increase this acid, then correspondingly avoid suffering mental problems.

The second problem is that the argument obviously uses two dubious analogies. First, the author uses the ancestors' experiences, instead of convincing evidence to illustrate the important role of omega-3 fatty acids. However, he or she obviously stands on shaky grounds. For example, how can the author know ancestors ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat? No clear evidence is mentioned in the above argument, which makes the result less reliable. Moreover, other factors might potentially affect the results. Common sense tells us current people are suffering higher-than-ever pressure, thus are more likely to suffer depression, which ancestors will never experience. Without eliminating all the possible environmental differences, the analogy of the ancestors and currents is obviously unconvincing.

By the same token, the author uses a wrong analogy between the United States and Japan, Taiwan. The geological, climate, environmental discrepancies are all factors that contribute to people's mental condition. In addition, the author cannot simply use the large quantities of fish consume to illustrate they eat more fish. Maybe they have a large proportion of fish output.

Finally, even the author substantiates all the foregoing assumptions, the final recommendation to suggest all residents to take fish in order to prevent depression amounts little evidence. Although fish contribute great to people's health, many people hate the fishy taste or they just don't like eating fish fearing of been boned. Thus, this generalization to all cases obviously runs the risk of unfeasible and unpersuasive.
最后想请教一下我的语言，有些看过我issue的人都说我写长句子太多了，但是对长句子的把握又不是很好，所以读着让人很费力，不知道前辈是怎么看我的句式的，能否给些着方面的指教~谢谢

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2008-1-5 18:49 编辑 ]

ICEYOUNGUID: 2437642

偶也来说两句吧，现在正在准备A 呢
偶觉得第二段好像没说出什么意思来， 删了的话也不影响全文的
第三段Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids这个我觉得算事实，也就是前提，没必要在这点上动笔墨，SO，For example, how can the author know ancestors ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat?这句话我觉得比较多余，也没有攻击力
Moreover, other factors might potentially affect the results. Common sense tells us current people are suffering higher-than-ever pressure, thus are more likely to suffer depression, which ancestors will never experience这句我很喜欢，点出了ARGUMENT的LOGICAL FLAWS，ETS不就是要ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION吗
日本台湾那段，我觉得你写的简单了点，应该大肆攻击的时候，不要手软

lsjaneUID: 2415613

谢谢修改~
同意你的观点:第三段写的不好,攻击的也不是准
台湾日本的也应力批
但是第二段的观点不对吗?不是有种错误是将有关系错误的等同为因果吗?这个也不能批吗?
谢谢指教

ICEYOUNGUID: 2437642

对于你的第二段，我是这样理解的
Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health     
Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression这两句话是一个意思
但你第二段说we cannot easily get the conclusion that lack of the acids will cause mental problems ，但这个A的结论是it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression，----是 in order to prevent depression，这个是吃鱼的目的，prevent depression，如果有人家族遗传depression，那岂不是吃再多的鱼也无用吗
而且还是it is important ，又不是说必须吃鱼不可
你说we cannot easily get the conclusion that ，we should complement more omega-3 fatty acids to keep mental healthy。但 omega -3 fatty acids， play a key role in mental health不就是这个意思吗
所以我觉得你拿这个the relationship between the two来攻击，效果不好
这个A里面攻击的对象就是两个例子，拿omega -3 fatty acids 和depression的关系说事，反正我是不会用到的
另外，not to mention the final suggestion that every one take fish to increase this acid, then correspondingly avoid suffering mental problems这不是废话吗？你自己都说了， 是not to mention

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By citing a recent study of omega-3 fatty acids, comparing ancestors with current people and the U.S with Japan and Taiwan (连续并列导致谁跟谁在比没看出来, 这两个比较分开说比较好), the author suggest all people in the U.S should take fish to decrease depression without persuasive evidence(前面的比较不是evidence? 是不是persuasive还需要讨论, 但放这想表达的意思已经杂糅了). I will discuss each of the facets in details.(what facts? 这句跟前面接不上)
我曾经仔细读过imong三部曲，也看过网上的一些帖子。发现原来的模版开头方式完全就是背景介绍形式，于是又读了官方范文的开头，然后自己总结了几种情况。上面的是其中一种，不知道是否合适，能不能起到TS的作用。
(总结出了作者的最终结论并指出了题目的错误, 那么TS的作用当然能达到. 就象你说的, 你的长句子杂糅意思太多, 注意英文中一个意思结束就要换句子, 不然就会有逻辑混乱. 比如那个by....suggests....without中, 中间的元素和前后两个都有逻辑关系, 就成了重复使用元素, 这就跟我们说中文里出现的"因为饿所以我吃包子为了管饱"一样.)

To begin with, the author unwarrantedly confuses the correlation with causation.(太笼统了, 这里correlation加了the那么是特指, causation没有the是泛指? 特指的话如果后文不能直接解释这里的correlation和causation, 这句话就成了无context的孤立句, 会让人产生困惑, 而泛指的话这句话就成废话了, 因为后面具体下来还是要表达这一层意思的.) Just because omega-3 fatty acids plays a key role in mental health (from the premise that omega-3....这里是个语法错误, because跟we get, 前面没主语和后面照应, 后面也看不出哪需要解释原因了. 而这里的这个事实也没有出处, 如果是作者所陈述的事实前提的话, 需要把这个意思写出来, 而不是直接引用, 这样这个事实就显得没有来头了.) we cannot easily get the conclusion that lack of the acids will cause mental problems or we should complement more omega-3 fatty acids to keep mental healthy.(不仅仅是那个事实推出来的吧, 应该说全文都在说这个问题, 只是作者到建议那里忽然收紧了表述范畴, 所以这个似乎更合适叫偷换概念而不是错误因果.) Without clear evidence about the causal relationship between the two(what evidence? 太笼统了), the author cannot confidently draw any conclusion based on the relationship, not to mention the final suggestion that every one take fish to increase this acid, then correspondingly avoid suffering mental problems.

(全段看下来没有任何detail, 就一句话"二者因果不必然"来回说, 它因呢? 缺少的证据和分析是什么? 为什么推不出来? 论证要深入. 我们写AW最容易犯的错误就是车轱辘话来回说. 不考虑那个类比)

The second problem is that the argument obviously uses two dubious analogies. First, the author uses the ancestors' experiences, instead of convincing evidence to illustrate the important role of omega-3 fatty acids(还是太笼统了, 作者做了什么从你的表达中看不出来, what experience? what evidence?). However(前面说错误后面也在说错误, 何来转折?), he or she obviously stands on shaky grounds. For example, how can the author know ancestors ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat? No clear evidence is mentioned in the above argument, which makes the result less reliable.(这个不能算example, 是直接用分析在说作者的错误) Moreover, other factors might potentially affect the results. Common sense tells us current people are suffering higher-than-ever pressure, thus are more likely to suffer depression, which ancestors will never experience(how? 还是没detail, 工作忙,生活节奏快,社会生产力高,知识爆炸,这些才是具体的展开,不说这样光用commonsense你的出发点也就没有依据了). Without eliminating all(三个以上才能用all, 你这就一个difference) the possible environmental differences, the analogy of the ancestors and currents is obviously unconvincing.(convincing for what? 应该是从这个比较到结论的推断不可信, 而不是这个比较本身不可信吧)

By the same token, the author uses a wrong analogy between the United States and Japan, Taiwan. The geological, climate, environmental discrepancies are all factors that contribute to people's mental condition.(detail呢? 有什么不同? 如何影响? 举例) In addition, the author cannot simply use the large quantities of fish consume to illustrate they eat more fish. Maybe they have a large proportion of fish output(so? they don't eat much omega3...注意把话说完).

Finally, even the author substantiates all the foregoing assumptions, the final recommendation to suggest all residents to take fish in order to prevent depression amounts little evidence.(不要老是缺乏evidence了..这里的错误应该是意见经过可行性论证, 所以可行性和必要性都不知道吧, 比缺evidence的范畴大多了, 如果说缺evidence, 那么你必须指出是什么evidence, 但似乎你全文提到的都很少, 特别是具体提到的evidence. 光说the evidence which can prove xxx is needed跟没说一样.) Although fish contribute great to people's health, many people hate the fishy taste or they just don't like eating fish fearing of been boned.(AW是学术性文章, 这种many people hate, don't like的表述太潦草了, 试着表达下"不同地域的人口味不同, 由于他们的饮食习惯, 美国人可能就不能接受吃很多的鱼. 何况鱼含有其它有害物质, 比如胆固醇, 这样为了减少压力而牺牲身体健康也不值得" 这样的意思吧) Thus, this generalization (generalize what what what?) to all cases obviously runs the risk of unfeasible and unpersuasive.

总评: 个人的感觉是LZ对于ARGUMENT的写法能有积极的思考是件很好的事情, 但不要光自己想, 不要只看范文的形式, 范文的内容是什么, 怎么论证问题的, 一定要深入地分析, 可以看看前人点评ARGUMENT的帖子. 建议用完整点的提纲写作, 甚至中文写作来推敲下ARGUMENT的论证过程, 避免空话来回说.

lsjaneUID: 2415613

谢谢~~~非常感谢修改~~
之前一直在期末考试~~好久没有来了~~
呵呵~~谢谢哦~~

lsjaneUID: 2415613

ARGUMENT205 - The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.

"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned when the author recommends Amburg to take intensity lighting to reduce crime rate. To make a comparison about the vandalism rate last month in between Belleville and Amburg, the author seems logical, but careful scrutiny reveals the argument is flawed in several respects.
不知道这样的开头方式可不可以~~能不能起到TS的作用。看了你以前写的关于argu怎样论证的帖子~知道开头也不能总是重述题目论据，所以想写一些自己的开头，但是上次的开头还是很失败的，所以这次稍微改了一下~不知道可不可以~~希望能修改~

To begin with, the author assumes that high intensity lighting is the key factor that causes the vandalism's decline. However, there's no necessary casual relationship between the two. No information is mentioned in the argument that whether other policy is implemented or not. In this case, we cannot eliminate the occasion that it is other policies like newly-established laws, newly-installed monitoring equipment, rather than high lightening that cause the decline in vandalism. Second, whether the rate did reduce or to what extent it reduced remain a question. Maybe the total number is big while reduce number is only one. Then the reducing effect cannot illustrate the effectiveness of the lighting policy.
反驳过程：提出作者观点=>作者观点的错误之处=>错误的原因以及他因（=>总结错误）
这样的论证过程可以吗？

Second, the author further assumes bicycle patrols policy is ineffective to control the rate of vandalism. However, this amounts to scant evidence. First, maybe this newly-devised policy takes at least two month to make effective results and in this short time period--one month—the result of this policy may not take effects. Second, maybe last month is the prime time of tourism in Amburg. Therefore, intense density of people gathering here leads to high rate of vandalism and the policy had already took effects when remaining the rate constant.

Finally, even assuming the lighting policy in Belleville is effective while bicycle policy in Amburg is not, the author further assumes Amburg will obtain the same effectiveness in Amburg and reduce crime rate. First, there’s an obvious distinguish between vandalism and crime, the former of which means only break regulations while the latter goes against the law. Even if the lighting policy takes effects in reducing vandalism rate, it can’t necessarily reduce the rate of crime, because crime involves not only this regulation, but also local laws, management, social customs etc.. Second, Amburg and Belleville are two different places that residents, climate, environment all have great discrepancies. Maybe in Belleville people are alarmed by this lighting policy while people are ignorant to lighting in Amburg. Moreover, the author don’t mention in the argument that whether Amburg has already had such lighting policy and whether there is a necessity to do so.