argument197 麻烦666了

StefanaUID: 2143510

TOPIC: ARGUMENT197 - The following appeared as part of a recommendation made by a faculty member to the president of a large university.

"Never once in our 150-year history as a university have we clarified our objectives. How, then, can we hope to adapt as an institution to the new challenges facing higher education. As a first step in this evolutionary process, therefore, we should send out questionnaires asking faculty members why they teach, asking students what they want from this university, and asking former students what they gained from their own education here. When the replies come in, we can tabulate them and formulate an official statement of our educational mission. This will surely result in improved programs at our university."
WORDS: 506      TIME: 00:30:00         DATE: 2009/3/29 11:42:49

In this recommendation, the faculty member asserts that the school should send out questionnaires asking faculty members and students to decide a clarified objective, and then it can improve the programs at the university. To bolster this assertion, the faculty member clearly says what should be involved in these questionnaires and then to tabulate the results and formulate an official statement of our educational mission. I find that this recommendation is logically flawed and it would probably fail to get the results as the faculty wish.

To begin with, the objectives come from the faculty or students would not be suit for the school whose goal is to have new challenges facing higher education. Firstly, almost everyone has their own concerns and it is hard for everyone to stand on the whole school point. Perhaps the faculty just concerns how to get a higher salary or a higher professional title. Secondly, the students all over the school would surely have different objectives. Maybe the freshmen or sophomores would just think of how to get better vacations or how to choose the interesting courses, and perhaps the juniors or seniors would prefer to field trip rather than the school courses. Moreover, the former students would say they get knowledge, experience, skills or some other generally sweeping words, which seems no use setting the clarified objectives.

The next logical flaw in this recommendation is that if the faculty, students, or former students all could stand on the point of school to answer these questionnaires, it is not sure that the school can tabulate them and formulate an official statement for the educational mission. Because the results from these three groups of people maybe be paradoxical to each other, even though the result are not from a usually unintentionally conflicting or contrary purpose. Perhaps the faculty would surely be like how build more and more essential courses in main-streamed research areas to improve the school’s educational quality and the student would be fond of how to get more and more interesting courses in non-main-streamed fields. How to find an objective upon these two results that cannot be simultaneously true; mutually exclusive.

Last but not least, even though the school can formulate an official statement for the educational mission, it does not mean that it can improve programs at the university. The author overlooks other factors which influence the quality of education. Suppose that an university just has a clarified objective but without enough money, great teaching implement, suitable environment and excellent professors, can it achieve the goal that get improved programs? It seems impossible. To achieve this goal, the faculty should assure other factors which would influence the quality of education.

In conclusion, this recommendation is based on an unconvincing suppose, with ambiguous results. Without concerning other possibilities and providing direct evidence that all the faculty, students and former students would all stand on the point of whole school and can put forward answers which have no paradoxical issues, the faculty's recommendation is logically flawed and should be rejected.

irvine666UID: 2575525

1# Stefana
TOPIC: ARGUMENT197 - The following appeared as part of a recommendation made by a faculty member to the president of a large university.
"Never once in our 150-year history as a university have we clarified our objectives. How, then, can we hope to adapt as an institution to the new challenges facing higher education. As a first step in this evolutionary process, therefore, we should send out questionnaires asking faculty members why they teach, asking students what they want from this university, and asking former students what they gained from their own education here. When the replies come in, we can tabulate them and formulate an official statement of our educational mission. This will surely result in improved programs at our university."
WORDS: 506      TIME: 00:30:00         DATE: 2009/3/29 11:42:49

这篇总的说来还是很隐晦的了，主要的难点就在于作者支持其结论的理由全部隐藏在一个questionaire里面，直接导致一个看似合理的假象：survey支持推论，推论支持结论。而实际上，逻辑错误主要来自survey的内容。因此在论述的时候，应当主要根据questionaires的3个asking对improve这个词的支持力度来反驳。
逻辑链：
asking faculty members --|
asking students            --|--->official statement ---> improvement
asking former students  --|

In this recommendation, the faculty member asserts that the school should send out questionnaires asking faculty members and students to decide a clarified objective(这里有问题，发问卷不是为了确立学校的目标，而是为了tabulate them and formulate an official statement of our educational mission，你可以仔细的看看to decide a clarified objective在文章里的位置), and then it can improve the programs at the university. To bolster this assertion, the faculty member clearly says what(指代不明) should be involved in these questionnaires and then to tabulate the results and formulate an official statement of our educational mission.（这一句写的比较罗嗦了，and then后面的有凑字数的嫌疑，因为你上文也提到过，可以去掉。） I find that this recommendation is logically flawed and it would probably fail to get the results as the faculty wish.（开头比较罗嗦，看着有点累，可以考虑精简一些可有可无的描述）

To begin with, the objectives come from the faculty or students would not be suit for the school whose goal is to have new challenges facing higher education. Firstly, almost everyone(这个everyone，如果我没有看错你的段落结构的话，应该是特指的faculty.而在这里用everyone有包括学生的意思) has their own concerns and it is hard for everyone to stand on the whole school point. Perhaps the faculty just concerns how to get a higher salary or a higher professional title.(从逻辑结构来看，你这里漏掉了一句So, blablabla。为什么员工考虑薪水和专业水平就对学校的目标不利？为什么你的这个他因能够支持你反对作者的论述？) Secondly, the students all over the school would surely have different objectives(这不是你反对作者的根源，根源是：学生们的目标同样可能是个人目标，和学校的整体发展目标不符，所以调查出来的结果可能偏离本来的目的). Maybe the freshmen or sophomores would just think of how to get better vacations or how to choose the interesting courses, and perhaps the juniors or seniors would prefer to field trip rather than the school courses. Moreover（前面是1，2，那这里就用3就行，突然冒出个moreover还以为你further develop的2）, the former students would say they get knowledge, experience, skills or some other generally sweeping words, which seems no use（knowledge,experience,skills就真的对办学目的没有指导意义么？这个他因很不合理。） setting the clarified objectives.
（现在我来给你分析一下你的段落结构：
                |--分论点1--他因
段落总体 TS|--分论点2--他因
                |--分论点3--他因
看出问题了么？除了TS，就是他因，你自己的理论，说理，反驳的话哪儿去了？我们要驳倒别人的话，仅仅是找他因绝对不够的。我们可能比较习惯2个原因就驳倒一切的推理方式，但是从严格的逻辑来说，为什么能驳倒？这个问题是必须在文章里面回答的。
“他因出现以后，对作者观点的关键的负面影响”属于你的理论依据，一篇好文绝对不能略掉。
）

The next logical flaw in this recommendation is that if the faculty, students, or former students all could stand on the point of school to answer these questionnaires, it is not sure that the school can tabulate them and formulate an official statement for the educational mission(我认为这个是小概率事件，否则岂不是任何调查都失去了价值了？没有任何survey调查出来的所有人观点能够完全的agreement). Because the results from these three groups of people maybe be paradoxical to each other, even though the result are not from a usually unintentionally conflicting or contrary purpose. Perhaps the faculty would surely be like how build more and more essential courses in main-streamed research areas to improve the school’s educational quality and the student would be fond of how to get more and more interesting courses in non-main-streamed fields.（mainstream 和 nonmainstream的矛盾即便真的存在，学校难道就不能两边都抓么？这个他因很怪异，因为你站在了一个“必须2选1”的隐含前提的立场来论述你的观点） How to find an objective upon these two results that cannot be simultaneously true; mutually exclusive.（这个批驳段的立场找的不是很好）

Last but not least, even though the school can formulate an official statement for the educational mission, it does not mean that it can improve programs at the university. The author overlooks other factors which influence the quality of education.(这句话不能这么说，否则就是和你的TS自相矛盾了，你多读一下就会发现问题：TS讲的是official statement(就是那个it)不能导致improvement，你的立场就应该是批function of official statement。但是接下来的这句话马上说improve可能有很多其他原因导致，立场站在了improvement上，岂不是思维混乱了？) Suppose that an university just has a clarified objective but without enough money, great teaching implement, suitable environment and excellent professors, can it achieve the goal that get improved programs? It seems impossible. To achieve this goal, the faculty should assure other factors which would influence the quality of education.(看到了么，自从第二句话开始引导了一个不正常的思维，整个段落的内容都和你的TS句是偏掉的。)

In conclusion, this recommendation is based on an unconvincing suppose, with ambiguous results. Without concerning other possibilities and providing direct evidence that all the faculty, students and former students would all stand on the point of whole school and can put forward answers which have no paradoxical issues, the faculty's recommendation is logically flawed and should be rejected.（结尾段不改，个人习惯～）

StefanaUID: 2143510

2# irvine666

666,我按照你的建议修改了文章,如果你有时间就再帮我看看吧.
开头参照了你关于Argue开头那篇文章进行了修改.
第二个你说我找得不好的论点去掉了,把第一段的Moreover单独拿了出来,不知道这样可不可以?
还有..最后一段你说我偏掉了的那个我没能很好的理解,我修改了一下我的句子,但是不知道这样解决了我的问题没.

Anyway,谢谢666你的雪中送炭,的确让我发现了自己的很多问题.


Grounding on the fact that never once in our 150-year history as a university have we clarified our objectives and the university have to face on the new challenges today, the author, one of the university faculty member, supposing that tabulating the replies from a survey of the faculty, the students and the former students in the university could formulate an official statement for the university mission, and then improve the programs at the university. However, through the earnest logical analysis, I find that this recommendation is logically flawed and it would probably fail to get the results as the speaker wish.

To begin with, the objectives come from the faculty or students would not be suit for the school whose goal is to have new challenges facing higher education. If the university sends out questionnaires for the faculty why they teach and for the students want they want to learn from the university, the results would not be the same and probable be counterproductive to each other. Perhaps the faculty just concerns how to get a higher salary or a higher professional title while the students have their own concerns. For example, maybe the freshmen or sophomores would just think of how to get better vacations or how to choose the interesting courses, and perhaps the juniors or seniors would prefer to field trip rather than the school courses. To this matter, if the results are counterproductive to each other, the university how to tabulate them and formulate an official statement of the educational mission?

Moreover, asking former members what they gained from their own education in the university would probably be useless. Maybe the former students would just say they get knowledge, experience, skills or some other generally sweeping words. Supposing that the former students stand on their own professional state to answer the question, different jobs would offer different stands and results in different answers. They maybe more likely to concern the social communicate skills, the experience about leadership, friendship, love or some other things, except the knowledge. Without evidence to show that the former students would stand on the university side to concern the questing, these results would be useless for the university's educational mission.

Last but not least, even though all the members, including the students, the faculty and the former students are stand on the whole sides of the university,
and the results from tabulating them helps the university formulate an official statement of the educational mission, we cannot make sure that this educational mission would help the university to improve programs. Suppose that an university just has a clarified objective but without enough money, great teaching implement, suitable environment and excellent professors, can it achieve the goal that get improved programs? It seems impossible. Without concerning other factors which could results the programs, the speaker can not make such a conclusion about it.

In conclusion, this recommendation is based on an unconvincing suppose, with ambiguous results. Without concerning other possibilities and providing direct evidence that all the faculty, students and former students would all stand on the point of whole school and can put forward answers which have no paradoxical issues, the faculty's recommendation is logically flawed and should be rejected.

irvine666UID: 2575525

3# Stefana

it does not mean that it can improve programs at the university. The author overlooks other factors which influence the quality of education.(这句话不能这么说，否则就是和你的TS自相矛盾了，你多读一下就会发现问题：TS讲的是official statement(就是那个it)不能导致improvement，你的立场就应该是批function of official statement。但是接下来的这句话马上说improve可能有很多其他原因导致，立场站在了improvement上，岂不是思维混乱了？)

这个问题是这样的,我们把它翻译一下：
第一句TS是：
even if balbalbla... it does not mean that:学校制定出的official statement能够改进办学目的。

所以按照逻辑来讲，接下来的论述应该是：
official statement为什么不能改进办学目的？它有哪些不足的地方？

但是你的第二句和以后的论述则是：
其他原因也能影响办学目的，比如OO,XX,TT...

对比一下就会发现问题了。

StefanaUID: 2143510

4# irvine666

那说他不能改进,是因为不止有这个因素影响,为啥不可以涅?
是不是这样就需要把TS改一下?

irvine666UID: 2575525

5# Stefana
1.因为逻辑跳跃
2.如果你不想改段落内容，自然需要改改TS了～

StefanaUID: 2143510

6# irvine666

谢谢666了,我理解了.
我会在大后天考试的时候注意的.