Argument52 [April作文互助小组]第三周作业

rita_moyoUID: 2274069

TOPIC: ARGUMENT52 - The following appeared in a memo to the human resources manager at Baobob Inc., a large architectural firm.

"Several well-known, retired architects were interviewed in Architecture Today about changes in the field. Only one had earned a college degree in architecture. All others had come into the field at an early age by serving apprenticeships that required them to work under the direct supervision of an experienced architect. Several of the colleges that we recruit from report that many promising architecture students leave school early in their undergraduate career. Therefore, because finding talented architecture graduates is becoming more difficult, Baobob Inc. should start an aggressive apprenticeship program and hire students who express an interest in architecture directly out of high school rather than wait for them to get out of college."
WORDS: 381        TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-3-30 16:44:01

In this memo, the human resources manager contends an aggressive apprenticeship program hiring students out of high school who express an interest in architecture rather than students out of college. To support this recommendation, the arguer cites the interview from Architecture Today indicating only one of well-know, retired architects earned a college degree, and along with the report from colleges which suggests many promising architecture students will leave school before graduate. This argument seems convincing and reasonable at a first glance. However, it suffers from several fallacies.

First, it fails to convince me the authority and reliability of the interview the arguer cited, after all I am not informed whether Architecture Today is powerful to make an effective interview and whether the interviewer, those well-know, retired architects are representative of over all architects. Without comparative new data and an authoritative interview, the arguer only relies on an unpersuasive conclusion.

Even assuming the interview is understandable, another confusing problem involves that whether the situation in several decades ago, in which the interviewer worked in, can reflect the trend now. The arguer makes a decision basing on the fact that those famous architects succeeded after serving apprenticeships while fails to take into account that whether now there are enough experienced architects provided for the aggressive apprenticeship program. One significant difference between now and  before is that in the past most people learn craft as apprentices while now more people can learn it at school. So perhaps experience architects now have few sense of responsibility to the apprentices and the number of those as eligible teachers might be fewer than before.  

Another fallacy in the memo is to suppose the students who express interest in field of architecture as promising architects. Actually, people who are interested in architecture might probably have no talent and aptitude about it. For instance, it is entirely possible that an artist likes the pictures of buildings but hardly learn how to build a building exactly. Without making criteria when hiring apprentices, the arguer’s program is unwise to invest and conduct.

In sum, the arguer should provide more convincing and cogent evidence to illustrate the reasonability of the aggressive program, such as the experience of working architects not only retired ones, the constructing ability of experienced architects, and the criteria of choosing apprentices.

[ 本帖最后由 rita_moyo 于 2008-4-3 23:31 编辑 ]

gingerleeUID: 2454321

不好意思呀，修改晚了。
In this memo, the human resources manager contends an aggressive apprenticeship program hiring students out of high school who express an interest in architecture rather than students out of college. To support this recommendation, the arguer cites the interview from Architecture Today indicating only one of well-know, retired architects earned a college degree, and along with the report from colleges which suggests many promising architecture students will leave school before graduate. This argument seems convincing and reasonable at a first glance. However, it suffers from several fallacies.

First, it fails to convince me the authority and reliability of the interview the arguer cited, after all（这里分开来会比较好after all 有因为的意思，改成.After all，） I am not informed whether Architecture Today is powerful to make an effective interview and whether the interviewer, those well-know, retired architects are representative of over all architects. Without comparative new data and an authoritative interview, the arguer only relies on an unpersuasive conclusion.

Even assuming the interview is understandable, another confusing problem involves that whether the situation in several decades ago, in which the interviewer worked in, can reflect the trend now. The arguer makes a decision basing（based） on the fact that those famous architects succeeded after serving apprenticeships while fails to take into account that whether now there are enough experienced architects provided for the aggressive apprenticeship program. One significant difference between now and  before is that in the past most people learn craft as apprentices while now more people can learn it at school. (在哪里学并不是很重要，也不能说明问题，但是学什么很重要，当年的学徒学的东西可能是当年很受欢迎的建筑技法，而现在时代不同了，现在学生学得肯定是最新的技法。所以当年成功的学徒不代表现在的学徒也能成功。) So perhaps experience architects now have few sense of responsibility to the apprentices and the number of those as eligible teachers might be fewer than before.  

Another fallacy in the memo is to suppose the students who express interest in field of architecture as promising architects. Actually, people who are interested in architecture might probably have no talent and aptitude about it. For instance, it is entirely possible that an artist likes the pictures of buildings but hardly learn how to build a building exactly. Without making criteria when hiring apprentices, the arguer’s program is unwise to invest and conduct.

In sum, the arguer should provide more convincing and cogent evidence to illustrate the reasonability of the aggressive program, such as the experience of working architects not only retired ones, the constructing ability of experienced architects, and the criteria of choosing

恩，逻辑蛮清楚地，字数上面可能还要加强一点。 每一个逻辑分析错误再能够饱满一点。结尾感觉不够丰满，如果感觉结尾字数不够的话，就把之前自己的指出作者应该如何如何的再总结一遍。