关于官方范文的几点说明&完整版范文下载

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

本来答应FF组的同学昨天发的 耽搁了一天 对不起呃

这个是我当初复习AW时候用的一套范文，全部由官方范文组成，里面包括ISSUE和ARGUMENT中6分和5分的范文以及所有的评述

啰嗦的话不多说了 我简述一下用法：

1、范文建议看的遍数--多多益善，最少不小于10遍。我准备的后期每天都要争取看上一遍，真的收获很多很多

2、评述，及其，非常，特别，很重要，尤其是ARGUMENT部分的，背过都不过分，里面的词汇句式很多样

3、关于背范文，因人而异，我没有背过整篇的，但是如果选择背诵的话，我倒是觉得评述比范文本身更值得背诵
     那些是读者的见解，也就是最终决定你文章分数的人们的观点看法（standard examination的评判标准是有传承性的）

4、前期不需要借助市面上现存的其余官方范文讲解（这个存在一定的误导性，我之所以这样说是因为不建议大家上来就看别人的分析而束缚住大脑，这些东西都是仁者见仁，前人的经典经验可以借鉴，但是需要在自己的思路稍成体系之后才会有最好的效果。当然，如果只求短期成本的话，看看也无妨）

5、和其余诸如北美嘉文的范文来比，谁正统我就不赘述了，我的建议是：如果是看范文，那么就先看官方的，琢磨透了可以看看别的，贪多嚼不烂，而且个人经验是官方范文的性价比最高，北美范文的性价比最低(个人经验哦，不要拍砖，嘿嘿)


P.S.：都是已经编辑好页面的，大家直接打印就好了，节约但是不影响使用。这是我推荐的复习AW必备的打印出的文件的两个

[ 本帖最后由 catfield 于 2008-11-2 00:18 编辑 ]

catfieldUID: 2481699

。。。。。这个不会是你做的总结吧？
首先标题就不吸引人啊|||-__-
如果是要讲范文的用法不应该归到资料类呀。。。这个版有全套的范文下载，你的帖子会很快被埋没的。。。。

crazy_calmUID: 2260690

顶斑斑，在我最需要的时候出现了，对像我这样的懒人简直是必备~~

iq28UID: 2152875

Argument Topic 1
The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of
environmental damage. this strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve
public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness
areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who
overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.

Essay Response—Score 6

This argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which
is not necessarily the case. The argument asserts that because the country of Myria charges fees
for the use of its national parks, there is little evidence of environmental damage. But there are
several reasons why one cannot assume that the lack of evidence of environmental damage is a
result of the fact that individuals are charged to use these parks.

First, just because there is a lack of evidence does not preclude the fact that environmental damage
may in fact be occurring. The individuals who are testing the area for evidence of damages may
not have the proper scientific instruments or educational training necessary to detect damage that
may be present. In fact, certain kinds of environmental damage may not be detectable in the short
term even using the most sophisticated scientific methods. Imbalance in ecosystems, for example,
may only become apparent over a long period of time.

Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage, this
does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one
can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations. An alternative explanation may be
that because the country charges a fee to use the national parks, people are less inclined to use the
parks. It then stands to reason that with fewer people in the parks, there will be less of a
detrimental impact on the environment. In addition, even if people are willing to pay the fee, the
funds collected may be insufficient to cover the costs of maintaining and preserving the parkland.

Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot
assume that this same scenario will work in Illium. There are a myriad of variables that can
contribute to the success of this type of environmental maintenance and restoration program.
Pre-existing and uncontrollable environmental conditions such as the rate of erosion and the
overall climate may cause damage that cannot be rectified by monetary solutions. In addition,
cultural norms regarding how one views his or her responsibility and role in terms of preserving
the environment may influence the intensity of environmental damage that may be sustained.

Thus, although the strategy of charging citizens of Myria for the use of its parks in order to collect
funds for any restoration that may be required may be successful in Myria, this reality alone does
not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would be effective in Illium or any other country.

Argument Topic 2
The following appeared in a memo from the human resources department of Rifco Computer
Company to the company president.
“In order to prevent conflicts in the workplace, Rifco Computer Company should require all its
employees to attend workshops that teach the technique of ‘active listening,’ a technique in which
people express feelings without assigning blame. This technique has clearly benefited Terland
Publishing Company: five years ago, two hundred recently hired Terland employees volunteered
to participate in a one-day active-listening workshop. Five years later, only five percent of these
employees had filed formal complaints with the human resources department, whereas the
company as a whole had a fifteen percent complaint rate during that period.”

Essay Response—Score 6

The Rifco Company president should not require its employees to attend these workshops based
solely upon the information she receives in this memo. In fact, she can draw very few conclusions
regarding the efficacy of this workshop without requesting additional information from the human
resource department at Terland Publishing Company.

Several variables have been left out of this report which, if included, would have made this claim
more valid. For example, the company president needs to know what percentage of the employees
who attended this workshop five years ago are still with the company at the present time. It is
possible that this workshop had disastrous effects which resulted in 175 of the participants’
quitting their jobs. Granted, this possibility may be unlikely, but it is certainly not impossible
given the information provided by the memo. Similarly, the company president needs to know
how many employees work at Terland Publishing Company overall. Even if all 200 employees
who attended the seminar were still working there, the numbers mean little if there are only 220
employees in the company. If this were the case, and if one can assume that the 15% of the
company as a whole excludes those who participated in the original workshop, than the 15%
overall complaint rate would be explained by 3 disgruntled employees. If the 15% includes the
employees who attended the workshop, the numbers are even less meaningful. This argument
would be strengthened if it was discovered that the majority of employees who attended this
workshop were still employed at Terland, and the overall employee population numbered in the
thousands.

The argument appears to assume that the workshop attendees were representative of all of Terland
employees. There is nothing in the argument to establish this representativeness, and the
assumption seems suspect, since the attendees differed in an important respect from other Terland
employees: they were newly hired. People tend to be especially cooperative when they are first
hired for a job and this alone might explain their willingness to volunteer, unlike other employees.
Even if Terland’s work shop participants could be shown to be representative of all Terland
employees, there is no reason to assume that they would be representative of Rifco’s employees.
Before such an assumption could be warranted, comparisons would need to be made between
Rifco and Terland in order to determine whether or not these results could be generalized. Are the
companies (one is a computer company and the other is a publishing company) even similar
enough to justify the assumption that the workshops would be equally successful with both groups
of employees? Perhaps listening is a more important and valued skill in the publishing industry
than it is in the computer industry. Perhaps Rifco’s staff listens so actively that they succeed in
avoiding conflicts the majority of the time—this memo does not even tell the reader whether
conflicts are a problem in the Rifco workplace.

The company president should in fact become suspicious. Perhaps the author of this memo has
just purchased a great deal of stock in the company which performs these workshops! The Rifco
human resource department could, in fact, be correct in its argument that these workshops have
benefited Terland. This argument, however, is not well-supported by the paucity of details they
have provided in this memo. Based upon the information here, the company president can
certainly discount the claim that all employees should be required to attend this workshop. The
only action that should be incited by this memo would be a deeper investigation of its claims.

Argument Topic 3
The following appeared in a popular health and fitness magazine.
“A ten-year study of a group of 552 men from Elysia showed that long-term consumption of
caffeinated black tea was associated with a much lower risk of stroke. Of these men, those who
drank more than three cups of black tea a day had a 70 percent lower risk of stroke than those who
drank no tea. These results suggest that health conscious people should consume at least three
cups of black tea a day, beginning early in life.”

Essay Response—Score 6

Before prescribing large quantities of black tea to the general population, the evidence given in the
argument should be examined from several other angles. the researchers who conducted the Elysia
study seem to have assumed that drinking three cups of black tea a day has preserved the health of
some of the Elysian men without examining any other factors which may have affected the results
of the study.

First of all, for an experiment to be accurate, it must be controlled, with a balance between the
experimental and the control groups. In the above study, though, we know nothing about the ages,
backgrounds, and general health of the men involved. We also do not know if the tea drinkers
were of the same age, background, and general health as those who did not drink tea. Further, if
the tea drinking men in the study were all quite young when the study began, they might only be
35years old today and thus be at small risk if stroke just because of their age. The same is true of
their general health. If they exercised regularly, ate healthily and never smoked, then their
decreased risk of stroke might have nothing to do with consumption of black tea and might simply
be an indication of a healthy lifestyle.

We might also ask: How do the two groups of men break down in terms of ethnicity? Do all the
men in one group belong to one ethnic group and all the men in the other belong to a different
ethnic group? Perhaps the tea drinkers are from an ethnic group whose members have a low risk
for stroke as compared with the ethnic group of those who drank no tea. If this were the case, the
study’s results would be questionable, at best.

Another element to consider is this: perhaps the group who have a higher risk of stroke have this
higher risk not because they abstain from drinking tea but because they are heavy smokers, or are
grossly overweight, or because they are all in their 70s and 80s and are in poor health and have
circulatory problems. We just don’t know.

Furthermore, even if Elysian tea in certain amounts is beneficial to men, what about women? The
argument says nothing about tea’s effect on women, so it therefore cannot make the
recommendation that all people should drink the tea. Perhaps there is something in the tea which
would adversely affect women. Perhaps there is something in the tea which, when drunk in
prescribed amounts, will adversely affect a women’s ability to bear healthy children. The point is a
generalization about women cannot be made from studies done on men; studies done exclusively
on men on the risk of heart attack have taught us that much. In addition, the argument fails to rule
out possible side-effects that might make tea drinking inadvisable for some people.

What if we consider some important terminology in the argument? For example, what does “long
term” mean? In the ten years of the study, does “long term” mean all ten years? Or does it mean
several months at a time over a period of X number of years? And what does “lower risk of strike”
mean? Does it mean that the tea-drinking men will still probably suffer strokes, but not until their
later years? Or that they absolutely will not have a stroke, no matter what? The problem is that key
terms in the argument are too vague to be meaningful.

In conclusion, any legitimate experiment must be strictly controlled and include a broad
cross-section of the population. The Elysian study fails to do that.

Reader Commentary for Essay Response—Score 6
This cogent and well-articulated response presents an insightful analysis of three central problems
in the argument:
—apparent absence of necessary controls in the study of Elysian men (e.g., the study failed to
consider variables such as subjects’ age, diet, and general health, and did not necessarily have
balanced experimental and control groups)
—unwarranted generalization (e.g., from Elysian men to Elysian women and children)
—use of vague terminology (e.g., “long-term” and “lower risk”)
Development of each of these points is both thorough and cogent. The writer asks effective
rhetorical questions and provides specific examples of the kinds of details that are missing from
the argument. In addition, overall organization is exceptionally clear, and transitions both between
and within paragraphs are smooth. Throughout the response, the writer clearly establishes logical
connections with the use of phrases such as “Another element to consider,” and “The same is
true.”
The writing is generally free of errors. Indeed, sentences are typically gracefully constructed with
careful embedding and subordination that suit the complexity of the writer’s analysis.
In summary, this response is outstanding; it offers a compelling critique of the argument’s flaws
and conveys meaning skillfully.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2008-11-2 14:01 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

Test 2: Issue Topic1
“Too much time, money, and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate
technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the
immediate benefit of its citizens.”
Essay Response- Score 6
I must say that I reject this statement. While it is true that we need to support society as much as
possible with current technology, that does not in any way mean that we should stop progressing
simply because our current technology cannot handle all the problems we have brought to it. Does
that mean that we should simply accept the status quo and make do? No, I don’t think so. To do so
would be tantamount to adopting a fatalistic approach; I think most people would reject that.
Technology has helped, and it has hurt. Without it, we would never have our standard of living,
nor quality of nutrition, expectation of a long and productive life span, and the unshakable belief
that our lives can be made even better. But it has also brought us universal pollution, weapons so
powerful as to be capable of rendering us extinct, and the consequent fear for our survival as a
species and as a planet. Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. And yet, still have to argue in
its favor, because without it, we have no hope.
Some might argue that we would be better off without technology. They might say that a return to
a less technologically driven approach to life would have the benefits of reducing stress and
allowing us to live simpler, happier lives, like those of our forebears. Such an idea is seductive, so
much so that much of art and all of nostalgia are devoted to it. But upon closer inspection, one
realizes that such a move would only return us to a life of different kinds of stress, one of false
simplicity, one fraught with danger. It would be a life without antibiotics where a minor cut could
prove deadly. It would be a life where childbirth is the main killer of women, and where an
emergency is dealt with in terms of hours and days instead of minutes and hours; a life where
there are no phones or cars or airplanes or central heating, no proven drug therapies to treat mental
illness, no computer. Would this world really make people happy?
What we already have, we have. And since the only way to move is forward, instead of allowing
ourselves to be paralyzed by fear and worry, we need to learn how to clean up the pollution we
have caused, and how to deal with a world that feeds on weapons of mass destruction. Doing these
things means having to move away from technology into a more difficult realm, that of diplomacy
and compromise; to move from the bully stance of “I am bigger and better and I have more toys
and so I win” to a place where everyone wins.
Technology is the thing that will allow people to do that. But, advanced as it is, it is still in its
infancy. We have to allow it to grow up and mature in order to reap the real rewards that it can
bring. And there are even greater rewards ahead of us than what the world has already experienced.
When technology is pushed to the outer edge, that is where serendipitous discoveries can occur.
This has been seen throughout technological advancement, but the easiest example is probably the
space program which made us think, really hard, about how to do things in a different
environment. It gave us telecommunications, new fabrics and international cooperation.
Paramedical devices, so that people can be treated even as they are being transported to the
hospital, are a direct development of that technology. None of this would have happened in the
time frame that it did if we had not pushed for technological advancement. If we had decided to
“focus on maximizing the use of existing technology” instead of foolishly reaching for the stars,
we would not have made those discoveries which now are the bedrock of the 21st century.
It is the same with the technology which we have now. Yes, we could stop, and put all our effort
into just trying to patch things with what we have. And it would probably make a lot of people
foolishly happy. But in the long run, it would be the most expensive thing we’ve ever done
because we would thereby forestall the discovery that cures cancer, or brings world peace, or
cleans and restores the environment. And we would all suffer from that shortsightedness, for far
too long.
Test 2: Issue Topic 2
“Most of the people we consider heroic today were, in fact, very ordinary people who
happened to be in the right place at the right time.”
Essay Response- Score 6
This statement expresses, sadly a basic lack of faith in the ineffable quality of human courage, and
the transcendant desire- to give of ourselves to one another.
“Ordinary people happen to be in the right place at the right time”- this is a fine description of us
who happen across the right partner, the perfect job, the ideal house. That is called luck, not
heroism.
I expect, to some extent, that this issue depends on how one defines heroism. Heroism- to mequalifies
as such when it exemplifies courage above and beyond ordinary bounds, and particularly
when it entails sacrifice. Overcoming fear is one of the greatest challenges we as humans face, and
the heroic are those who manage to overcome this obstacle. They rise above base human behavior
and overcome their instinctive fear of death, poverty, imprisonment, alienation, and more.
When we think of heroes, whom do we most often cite? Mother Thesera, for one; a woman from a
well-to-do background who sacrificed all to serve the greater good and bring redress to the lives of
the hopelessly poor and marginalized. She renounced all that most of us hold dear- family, wealth,
comfort- in the service of others, risking disease and death all the while. How many of us could
follow her example? Can one honestly claim that she was simply in the right place at the right
time? How many others were, and did nothing? How many of us sought out her place of work in
Calcutta, to offer help?
Was the Arlington firefighter who plunged recently into a burning building merely in the right
place at the right time, or did he summon superhuman resolve to place himself squarely in the face
of danger and death? Was Audie Murphy, the most-decorated soldier of the Korean War, simply in
the right place at the right time? Yes, he was there, in the right place, at the right time, but he could
have shrunk back- instead, he risked death to save the lives of others. Many other were with him;
why were they not equally recognized? Perhaps, because they did less. Was Vaclav Havel merely
fortunate in time and circumstance when he led the Czech “Velvet Revolution”- a man who had
already suffered long confinement in communist prisons, and who knew he was risking?
I would argue that these people, whom indeed may have been perfectly ordinary, nonetheless went
a step further and found within themselves reserves of enormous courage and commitment, which
allowed them to triumph over instinct and rise to the level of heroism.
This statement above fails to take into account much of the enormous complexity of what it is that
makes us human, and fails to consider that some people possess a highly developed moral instinct
and are willing to commit themselves to the good of the many.
Any of us can be in the right place at the right time, yet most of us fail to step forward to do what
is heroic. Those who exemplify heroism are those who take that frightening step. Being in the
right place at the right time is not- cannot be- enough to constitute heroism.
Since before antiquity society has recognized this, and thus developed complex mechanisms to
honor and reward heroic behavior: Medals of Honor and the Croix de Guerre; personal rewards
such as promotions, power and money; and laudatory public events such as ticker-tape parades
and eternal flames in Arlington Cemetery. These are but outward symbols of an inner reality: that
heroism is something far greater and infinitely more transcedant than “being in the right place at
the right time”, and so ought to be, as it is, accorded dignity, reward, and respect.
Test 2: Issue Topic 1
“Great advances in knowledge necessarily involve the rejection of authority”
Essay Response- Score 6
The central tenant of history is change. History is the documentation of how things were, before
new events and ideas emerged to revolutionize the status quo. As a species, we homo sapiens are
equipped with faculties of intelligence and free will that allow us to develop an individual identity.
As individuals, we establish an individual identity based on our interests, likes, dislikes, etc. As a
species, we establish a collective identity that is the aggregate of all individual identities. What is
the link between these two roles that we play, as individuals and as a collective member of society?
It has to do with power, authority, and the subjugation of the individual will to what has been
called “the general will”.
In the 17th century, the emergence of social contract theory helped to explain (at least in a
theoretical way) how individuals came to live under an authority such as the modern stats. One of
the most important of these social contract theorists, John Locke, took a cue from the earlier
theorist Thomas Hobbes and postulated that there was an original condition, in which all humans
once existed, called “the state of nature.” In the state of nature, there was no collective power, but
only scattered individuals, who had absolute freedom to do whatever they saw fit. The state of
nature was to be governed by the “law of nature,” ordained by a omnipotent creator, that
individuals should not infringe upon the natural rights of others, specifically their life, liberty or
property. However, there was no guarantee of this, for in the state of nature there is no controlling
force of restraint, and the most powerful could easily exploit the weak. This led to the creation of a
social contract, whereby a group of individuals banded together and agreed to give up some of
their individual power in order to gain protection from their collectivity, the state, which would act
as an executive, legislative and judicial authority to preserve justice and natural rights.
This social contract theory reflected an increase in knowledge- the increasingly humanistic
philosophy that was overtaking Europe at the time advocated the eminence of the individual, and
that no power, not even the sovereign state, should be able to infringe on the rights of the
individual. Indeed, it was upon this very theory that Thomas Jefferson based his arguments against
the tyrannies of King George in the Declaration of Independence, perhaps one of the greatest
rejections of authority ever. By fighting the Revolutionary War, the 13 colonies demonstrated to
the world that a people dedicated to the cause of justice could overthow tyranny- it was a
revolutionary idea, that there should be government by, for and of the people, rather than by divine
right.
The Americans were the obvious outlet for rebellion against European power. Many came here for
religious freedom, to escape the forced recognition of a particular, state-sanctioned religion.
Indeed, the whole concept of religion underwent a radical change in the 16th century, when a
Catholic clergyman from what is now Germany went and nailed his arguments against the
Catholic churches’s selling of indulgences to the door of the church in Wurtenburg. Martin Luther
was excommunicated from the church for his heresy, for his rejection of what he saw as the
illegitimate exercise of authority by the Catholic church in Rome. Yet his act of defiance led to the
creation of a huge branch of Christianity, Protestantism and all its variations. Upon this defection
of some of its following, the Catholic church began the counterreformation, which was an attempt
to get rid of the abuses of the Catholic church and restore it to its original sanctity. This
represented change, brought on by the catalyst of dissent against the theretofore unchallenged
dominance of the authority of the Catholic church..
Another groundbreaking advance in knowledge that has created a continuing struggle with the
authority of religion occurred late in the 19th century when Charles Darwin, aboard the H.M.S.
Beagle, traveled to the Galapagos Islands of the coast of Ecuador to study the plant and animal life
there. Shortly after, Darwin published his theory of evolution, stating that life was not created by
an omnipotent god, but rather that all life evolved from the elements that were here on Earth after
the Universe came into being. After about a century of continuing experiments that seem to
conclusively prove the theory of evolution, there are still those in the religious sphere that reject
the idea out of hand simply because the Book of Genesis (in the Bible, or Torah, Old Testament),
says that God created life.
Test 2: Issue Topic 2
“What is called human nature is really a reflection of the human condition: if all eople had a
reasonable share of territory and resources, such products of ‘human nature’ as war and
crime would become extremely rare.”
Essay Response- Score 6
While it is true that human nature is a reflection of the human condition, it is not logical to assume
that creating the illusion of an equitable set of circumstances for all humans would diminish things
such as war and crime. Human nature is comprised of all the innate qualities that exist within
human beings, including but not limited to the instinct of survival, the drive to be competitive, and
the characteristic of envy.
Self-preservation is a fundamental quality that exists within all human beings. The desire to first
and foremost protect oneself is an instinct that all people are born with. The act of surviving
requires that human beings must, at times, conquer other people in order to promote their own
self-interest. War, in its most basic, justified form is merely an act of survival. When humans feel
threatened, the natural reaction is to lash out in self-defense. The threat need not be real; an
imagined sense of insecurity can easily escalate into what is perceived as a dangerous situation.
The buildup of nuclear weapons is an example of how insecurity can sow the seeds for military
action. As one world power, the Unites States for example, accumulates weapons, other countries,
such as the former Soviet Union, feel compelled to accumulate their weapons as well. To stand
idly by while another group of human beings is perceived as becoming more powerful is contrary
to the instinct that drives human beings: to survive at any cost. Even if each country is equally
well-armed, in possession of the same resources, the result is not peace and harmony. The result of
these propensities is war- not necessarily an arms war, but a war of the will.
The war of the will extends into even the most harmless aspects of life. The competitive drive is a
part of the instinct of survival that compels humans to reach beyond their present circumstances.
This competitive spirit is a double-edged sword. The spirit of competition is what pushes
individuals to succeed in every arena: sport, academics, medical advances, technological gains, etc.
However, this competitive drive can also be fundamentally damaging and lead to violence as well.
This innate spirit of competition is nurtured at an early age- even when humans are assumed to be
on the same level. Parents push their children to succeed at every level- from pre-school to
pee-wee soccer. Children learn from the example of their parents that competition is a desirable
thing; or children learn that competing means winning at any cost. The recent outbreak of violence
among parents at youth sporting events demonstrates that the spirit of competition can lead to
dangerous confrontation, even murder.
Competition in and of itself is not a negative activity, but in human terms, everything is colored by
those things which make up human nature. Human nature is also made up of vices; one of these
vices is envy. It is fundamental to humans to look to others to assess the value of their particular
standard of living. The idea of absolute equality is an illusion. Because of the human need to
compete and survive, there will always be some that have more than others. It is not natural for
humans to see others who they perceive to be similar to themselves possess more than they do and
not react to it. The reaction comes in the form of seeking to gain at any cost, to “keep up with the
Jones.” Envy leads to a desire to dominate, to conquer, to cheat to get ahead, to steal to have more
if one does not possess any other means.
If we lived in a Utopian society and all the world was an even playing field, that still could not
conquer the problems inherent in the human condition. The human condition is exactly that: a
condition. It is not something that individuals can escape from or remedy. Part of being human is
acknowledging the problems that are inherent to being human. War and crime will always exist
because they are the direct results of some of the most basic parts of human nature. The instinct of
survival, the competitive drive, and envy will continue to cause humans- in any society- to
stumble and fall.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2008-11-2 14:03 编辑 ]

firhadayUID: 2287086

QQ表情很有意思的

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

呵呵 那个补充范文是吧

整理的时候忘记加了

谢谢

corpuscleUID: 2503411

我想说的是：Argument好像打不开，可能是软件问题
:o

only-bigboyUID: 2566075

不会是 A范文的逻辑比I更加清晰？
---SANYA

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

我自己认为ARGUMENT的评述是超级有用，所以超级推荐
其余的大家可以按照自己的需要去背诵模仿

crazy_calmUID: 2260690

issue范文中topic1和topic7貌似是一样的，是不是重复了？

mingzi12390UID: 2559903

我认为很好， 很启发思路。 总是看北美范围脑袋都被锈掉了。

lianghingisUID: 2503485

谢了哈

whinnyUID: 189834

附件我下载，感觉很好。

naruto6868UID: 2578954

谢谢