Argument221 [黄金十二宫]第三次作业(5.29)

微末三月UID: 205072

发现这篇文章不好写啊,容易找到论点,但是找不着论据.写着写着就成issue了,sigh...
而且发现自己巨胡搅蛮缠...:L

outline:
1.survey's authority and authenticity are open to doubt.
2.it may not applied to all languages just because it can apply in Russian
3.salary of  non-native speakers as language instructors may higher than that of native.

argument:
This editorial concludes that 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. To support this conclusion, the editorial cites that in a recent survey most students studying beginning Russian prefer to non-native teachers rather than native speakers. The editorial also concludes that the non-native teachers were better because they have a better understanding of how to teach effectively. However, this argument suffers from several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the editorial fails to provide sufficient information concerning the survey. On the one hand, the argument fails to indicate what portion of the students surveyed actually responded. The smaller this portion, the less reliable the results. Perhaps the number of respondents was too low to lead to a reliable conclusion. On the other hand, it is worthy to suspect whether the survey’s respondents were representative of overall students studying Russian. And the authenticity of their responses is also unwarranted. Maybe the respondents had been taught just by one or two native Russian instructors who did not express themselves well or were unable to teach in effective way. If so, these individuals may not be representative of other high-quality native Russian instructors who were highly praised by their students. Lacking the further detailed information, the assumption that most students prefer native speakers to non-native speakers as their instructors is open to doubt.

Even if some non-native Russian teachers are better than native, it also problematic to say that it applies to all languages. Does Russian mean all language? Of course, Russian is a kind of language, but not in inverse turn. Maybe Russian differs from other languages in its basic rule in structure of sentences, for example, which native Russian teachers have no trouble in understanding but the students do. Maybe no Russian has this difficulty so the native teachers might not know how to solve; whereas the non-native teachers, who faced the same puzzle before, are able to help the students out of. And, the same situations might not exist in all other languages. Without any evidence of similarity between Russian and other languages, the assumption in this argument that all languages should apply the same principle as in Russian is unconvincing.

Last but not least, the argument assumes too hastily that hiring non-native speakers as language instructors will cost a smaller amount of money than those on native. Maybe in this region the non-native speakers who can teach effectively mostly hold a PhD degree yet there is full of excellent native speakers as educators. These people may escape from their motherland owing to the war or other reasons and to support their family they just need an income which is much lower than that of non-native PhD teachers.

In sum, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide further detailed information about the survey that can validate its authority and authenticity. The author should show clear evidence of similarity between Russian and other languages and the same principle used in Russian can be applied to all languages. Finally, the author should also offer sufficient proof that hiring non-native speakers as language instructors will cost fewer than that of native speakers.

永远的圣者UID: 2182901

outline:
1.survey's authority and authenticity are open to doubt.
2.it may not applied to all languages just because it can apply in Russian
3.salary of  non-native speakers as language instructors may higher than that of native.
【三月，看了我给你发的那一段，我想你应该知道我想说什么，在我看来，调查的真实性和权威性，我认为绝对不是一个最关键的漏洞，所以把它放在第一段，我认为很需要考究。其他的也不多说，那个犇人已经说的很明白了。
下面是我的提纲：
1.对于俄语初级班的调查，以及对于非俄国人能更好地教俄语的解释，仅说明了非俄国人教初级俄语可能更好 2.如果教俄语的一个例子可以说明提高所有的语言教学都要用非母语的人，那么1的同样的问题也会再次出现 3.对于调查的质疑 4.对于能省钱的质疑
下面是njutlee的提纲：
1.该调查结果不能说明non-native作为Russian教师更好。原因在于：首先，调查对象仅是学初级Russian的学生，不具代表性，没有调查学习中级和高级Russian的学生；其次，仅仅学生的评价结果就能判断non-native是否更好吗？对于教学的评价，不能只看学生的意见，还要看他们的测试成绩以及其他人的意见； 2。个体推广到全体的错误 3。save money 缺乏支持 】
argument:
This editorial concludes that 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. To support this conclusion, the editorial cites that in a recent survey most students studying beginning Russian prefer to non-native teachers rather than native speakers. The editorial also concludes that the non-native teachers were better because they have a better understanding of how to teach effectively. 【感觉还是有一点繁琐，上面两句写在一起可能比较好一些】However, this argument suffers from several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the editorial fails to provide sufficient information concerning the survey. On the one hand, the argument fails to indicate what portion of the students surveyed actually responded. The smaller this portion, the less reliable the results. Perhaps the number of respondents was too low to lead to a reliable conclusion.【给人不专业的感觉】 On the other hand, it is worthy to suspect whether the survey’s respondents were representative of overall students studying Russian. And the authenticity of their responses is also unwarranted. Maybe the respondents had been taught just by one or two native Russian instructors who did not express themselves well or were unable to teach in effective way. If so, these individuals may not be representative of other high-quality native Russian instructors who were highly praised by their students. Lacking the further detailed information, the assumption that most students prefer native speakers to non-native speakers as their instructors is open to doubt.

Even if some non-native Russian teachers are better than native, it also problematic to say that it applies to all languages. Does Russian mean all language? Of course, Russian is a kind of language, but not in inverse turn. Maybe Russian differs from other languages in its basic rule in structure of sentences, for example, which native Russian teachers have no trouble in understanding but the students do. Maybe no Russian has this difficulty so the native teachers might not know how to solve; whereas the non-native teachers, who faced the same puzzle before, are able to help the students out of. 【问一下三月，可以直接out of 吗】And, the same situations might not exist in all other languages. Without any evidence of similarity between Russian and other languages, the assumption in this argument that all languages should apply the same principle as in Russian is unconvincing.

Last but not least, the argument assumes too hastily that hiring non-native speakers as language instructors will cost a smaller amount of money than those on native. Maybe in this region the non-native speakers who can teach effectively mostly hold a PhD degree yet there is full of excellent native speakers as educators. These people may escape from their motherland owing to the war or other reasons and to support their family they just need an income which is much lower than that of non-native PhD teachers.

In sum, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide further detailed information about the survey that can validate its authority and authenticity. The author should show clear evidence of similarity between Russian and other languages and the same principle used in Russian can be applied to all languages. Finally, the author should also offer sufficient proof that hiring non-native speakers as language instructors will cost fewer than that of native speakers.
改你的文章相当苦恼啊，明明看不出来什么语言上的问题，先睡觉了，明早起来在看

[ 本帖最后由 永远的圣者 于 2006-5-31 06:55 编辑 ]

永远的圣者UID: 2182901

早上爬起来又看了一遍，在语言上，我觉得除了个别的地方写的有点不太对头以外，其他的大部分的语言是很好的。
关键的问题，起码从这篇文章可以看出，作者的对逻辑的论述的能力还有待提高，希望以后不会出现比如说在一开头就写受调查学生的比例问题这样的（因为这应该不是什么关键性问题），或者什么俄语基本结构与别的语言不同（这可能是问题，但是相当没有说服力），我想这是你提高的方向——给我们一篇有说服力的文章。
ps：我真的不想班门弄斧了

微末三月UID: 205072

:L:rolleyes:

非常谢谢圣者,你的意见我会好好考虑,写的时候确实没注意到那个"初级",后来看别人的outline才醒悟过来.嗯,论点没找得好.关于那个挑错顺序,的确不能光按题设顺序来写.

犇人介绍,我还没看完.明天继续学习...那天不好意思,看岔了,误会了,自以为是了...