argument221 第2周作业 希望多批评

cwztyo__UID: 2159050

ARGUMENT221  The following appeared in the editorial section of a student newspaper.
"In a recent survey, most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers of Russian is easy to see: the non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves, and so they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. Therefore, in order to improve instruction for all languages and also save money, our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speakers."

In this editorial section, the arguer reaches a conclusion that as long as employing non-native speakers instead of native ones, the university will improve instruction for all language and also save money. To validate the consequence above, the arguer puts forward the following arguments: (1) most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers; (2) the reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers is that non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves and they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. The arguer’s argument is problematic in a few respects, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

  At the beginning, the arguer fails to provide substantial evidence as to why most students gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The arguer arbitrarily offers only one reason that non-native speakers learned Russian later as the second language and they have a better understanding of how students could accept instruction efficiently and easily. Perhaps there exist other reasons. Maybe non-native speakers are more humorous than native ones in classes, which generate students to concentrate on leaning the language happily. Maybe students just like the kind of teachers who are not excessively rigid , such as not assigning too much homework , permitting expressing their own opinions during leaning ,talking after classes like friends, and patiently answering every questions. And non-native teachers are just this case. Hence, until the arguer take account into all the factors above, I cannot support his point.

  Secondly, the arguer overlooks the weaknesses of non-native speakers as language instructors. Common sense tells us that there are two sides in a story. Even if non-native teachers do have a myriad of merits that attract students deeply, they surely have some defects in instructing at the same time. Perhaps non-native speakers aren’t good at oral Russian and hearing, which influences the quality of instruction. For instance, the teachers pronounce words incorrectly due to local accent, students in his classes must have difficulty in listening to Russian later. On the other hand, native speakers have advantages in certain aspects, such like decent pronouncing and natural language environment. If the arguer cannot compare the advantages of non-native speakers with disadvantages of them, he won’t support non-native speakers due to their weak merits rather than more defects.

  Finally, even if the non-native speakers could be successful in teaching Russian, it does not necessarily reflect that this policy could be applied in all language fields in the university. Perhaps in instruction of other language fields, native speaker are better than non-native speakers. Otherwise, even if this policy get achievement in recent years, the arguer cannot assure this trend will continue abate.

  To sum up, the arguer’ argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clear evidence in two respects: (1) non-native speakers have more advantages in disadvantages in teaching Russian; (2) recruiting non-native speakers similarly are applied in other language classes.

[ 本帖最后由 cwztyo__ 于 2006-5-29 22:27 编辑 ]

11yaoyaoUID: 177037

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D3

asong2004UID: 2178054

In this editorial section, the arguer reaches a conclusion that as long as employing non-native speakers instead of native ones, the university will improve instruction for all language and also save money. To validate the consequence above, the arguer puts forward the following arguments: (1) most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers; (2) the reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers is that non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves and they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively（好像说原文要多多地改写才好——当然我也不知道改到什么程度才好。。。。）. The arguer’s argument is problematic in a few（觉得应该强调不少方面） respects, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

  At the beginning, the arguer fails to provide substantial evidence as to why most students gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The arguer arbitrarily offers only one reason that non-native speakers learned Russian later as the second language and they have a better understanding of how students could accept instruction efficiently and easily. Perhaps there exist other reasons. Maybe non-native speakers are more humorous than native ones in classes, which generate students to concentrate on leaning the language happily.( 这个理由不能让我信服哦) Maybe students just like（感觉一般理解为正如吧，放在这里表示喜欢么）the kind of teachers who are not excessively rigid , such as not assigning too much homework , permitting expressing their own opinions during leaning ,talking after classes like friends, and patiently answering every questions. And non-native teachers are just this case. Hence, until the arguer take account into all the factors above, I cannot support his point. （这段给我的感觉是你承认作者的观点了只是认为他的证据不足，帮他补充——这样可以吗？）

  Secondly, the arguer overlooks the weaknesses of non-native speakers as language instructors. Common sense tells us that there are two sides in a story（是小说还是双面剑?） . Even if non-native teachers do have a myriad of(夸张了，哈哈) merits that attract students deeply, they surely have some defects in instructing at the same time. Perhaps non-native speakers aren’t good at oral Russian and hearing, which influences the quality of instruction. For instance, the teachers pronounce words (pronunciation直接用这个吧) incorrectly due to local accent, students in his classes must have difficulty in listening to Russian later. On the other hand, native speakers have advantages in certain aspects, such like decent pronouncing and natural language environment. If the arguer cannot compare the advantages of non-native speakers with disadvantages of them（这个对比谁谁谁的优点和缺点？）, he won’t support non-native speakers due to their weak merits rather than more defects.

  Finally, even if the non-native speakers could be successful in teaching Russian, it does not necessarily reflect that this policy could be applied in all language fields in the university. Perhaps in instruction of other language fields, native speaker are better than non-native speakers（举例，比如某地的土著语言。。。）. Otherwise, even if this policy get achievement in recent years, the arguer cannot assure this trend will continue（趋势指的是雇佣非本国语的人？那样的话应该接继续繁荣表反义的吧） abate.

  To sum up, the arguer’ argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clear evidence in two respects: (1) non-native speakers have more advantages in disadvantages in （这个这个好诡异的用法）teaching Russian; (2) recruiting non-native speakers similarly are applied in other language classes.
文章的问题感觉还有调查不明和省钱的问题吧，好像省钱还是挺大的问题，毕竟靠后嘛。

cwztyo__UID: 2159050

谢谢关心