Argument53 同一主题第四期_By undoerlc

undoerlcUID: 194641

TOPIC: ARGUMENT53 - Thirteen years ago, researchers studied a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice. They discovered that these infants were more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mothers' production of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight. In a follow-up study conducted earlier this year, more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. Clearly, increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.
WORDS: 847          TIME: 0:60:00          DATE: 2006-7-20
写得太爽多写了点...超时N多,平时基本都保持600多W40分...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attack:
1.质疑13年前study: distress是婴儿本身的么?有对照么?
2.质疑最近study:shyness和distress有关系么?是以前distress那些infants显示了可以察觉的shyness么?
3.即使前2个study正确,M那个东西和shyness有什么关系?(秋天怀孕的那批可能不是后来shy那批; 其他因素影响而非M;异常的秋天)
4.later year能一直影响下去?

思路:
通过1,2的攻击先搭一座桥, distress到shyness, 这样M就可以过桥来影响shyness了.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on two thirteen-year interval studies, the author concludes that the infancy's shyness is caused by the increased levels of melatonin and will continues into its later life. However, this argument is based on two problematic studies and a false reasoning, therefore is unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the study conducted thirteen years ago is questionable because it is insufficient to warrant the truth that there is a common distress within this group than the other ones. As we all known, a infant or even a adult is prone to show distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli. This is because we all have an inborn tendency to defense the things which might potentially hurt us. Therefore, in this study it possibly is that case. A infant show distress to the unfamiliar stimuli because of its inborn tendency which other infants also have. Even if there is such difference between this group and the others, this might possibly due to the influences of the researchers, since infants are likly to be nervous when facing so many people. Therefore, other groups might probably appear the same distress even if without stimuli. However, the study even fails to tell us how did the other groups behave when exposed to familiar stimuli or just researchers. In all, the study is problematic if without telling the comparison between several different groups.

Moreover, after thirteen years, the following study is still unconvincing to tell us that whether those infants who showed distress before displayed discernable shyness afterwards and that shyness have something to do with the foregoing distress. Firstly, more than half is not clear described to warrant the truth. Is 13 out of 25 more than half? The cardinal number of 25 is too small, therefore, without tell the exact number of the "more than half", any conclusion made on it should be highly dubious. Secondly, can the teenagers clearly identify themselves? Probably not. Moreover, there is not comparison with others too. It is entirely possible those teenagers are so modest, their peers are even shyer than them. Nevertheless, shyness is hard to discern. Even if the research want to discern that, they cannot expect the people who they research to discern themselves, it is not scientific also because they have their own individual criteria to judge whether they are shy or not. Moreover, 13 years long time can change everything, we have no reason to believe the distress they showed before have anything to do with this probable shyness. The environment, such as physical environment, education, family etc, are quite different, and these are in all likelihood to cause or eliminate their shyness. In all, the study afterwards is also unpersuasive as it stands.

Thirdly, even if the two studies are convincible, the group of 25 infants who showed special distress before displayed shyness afterwards. However, the author assumes without justification that there is a causal relationship between the increased levels of melatonin and the shyness the infancy appears thirteen years later. First of all, we have no reason to believe the distress is also shyness, as the author tells in the conclusion that melatonin would cause shyness during infancy. Common sense tells us that we are nervous does not necessarily means we are shy. And it is even impossible to discern whether an infant is shy or not. Secondly, the reasoning that melatonin causes shyness is problematic. We have no reason to believe that the infants conceived in autumn are the teenagers who displayed shyness later, or these two have any relationships. The author does not provide evidence to convince us. It is possible that infants conceived in other seasons showed shyness even more seriously in the end. Therefore, we have no reason to believe melatonin has anything to do with shyness. Moreover, even if infants conceived in autumn exactly showed shyness later, however, it is probably not the results of the melatonin. It could also be the results of the mood of the mother, which could be special in autumn. Even if it is melatonin, there is no reason to believe it is the results of the increased levels of melatonin. It is probably because in that year's autumn, the daylight increased and therefore the melatonin did not increase, since the weather is so changeable. In all, the author's failure to reason that causal relationship renders the conclusion based upon it highly dubious.

Finally, even if the melatonin is the causation of the later shyness, there is still no reasons to believe the shyness will continues into later life. As we all known, shyness is more likely a acquired characteristic, or at lest we can change it through our participation of public activities and delivery of public speech. At all, there is no reason to believe the author's conclusion that melatonin will sentence one to shyness in all one's life and it is not reasonable.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stand. Following up the author's conclusion, the doctor might try to restrain the levels of melatonin by using medicine during pregnancy. However, this might not resolve shyness, moreover, possibly cause other unknowable problems or even illnesses.

[[i] 本帖最后由 undoerlc 于 2006-7-20 11:22 编辑 [/i]]

expire7UID: 2160574

怎么说呢。写的不错的文章。
语言方面很好了。
A的要求也做得不错。
不过，有时候感觉你段内绕得太厉害了，段内的思路别人看起来并是特别的清晰。800字的A感觉似乎有点多。看你平常的练习时间了。如果你平常可以保证35W写道550左右，你可以保持你这种写法。毕竟充分的论证可以保证更高的得分。如果时间上要照顾，那么就要缩减一些攻击。并不是说A的攻击就一定要很全面。你论述的方面一个展开到两点算很好了。当然，如果你攻击方面很多，像这篇。最好还是一个展开一点就好了。
此外仔细看有些多余的话，你的文章还可以再精简的。

undoerlcUID: 194641

谢谢77：
感谢你上次给我看imong的文章，我把他3篇都看了一下，改变了下原来文章写作残留的套路感觉，基本把套路都化成语言了；而且也发现imong关于论证深入和论证组织的文章很有用，学到了很多
8过现在遇到的问题是，论证深入了，怎么把时间节省出来呢？除非A中间的错误有些实在太少，否则基本我还是偏向把有力的驳斥都加入进去；没有了模板，许多重复性的本来可以一上来就打上一通的东西没了，自然花时间去想的东西很多，郁闷的是思维没那么快，很多possibilities还是要停下来想想，所以浪费了很多时间。
现在的速度AWP定30分钟，然后写完差不多平均可以500字，再写上10分钟600字的文章基本可以写出来。
我现在的计划就是每天限时写，然后把possibilities共性的东西总结下，没有些固定的东西要在30分钟内写好难度还是蛮大...现在练习了大概15篇A

[ 本帖最后由 undoerlc 于 2006-7-20 12:41 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

1。模版，的确不提倡使用。特别是水平好一点的GTER更是希望用自己的话说。不过我个人的感觉是，最好还是背诵一点模版，如果考试时候紧张时来不及自己写开头而且要写得漂亮的。我就是这样准备的。
2。驳斥有力当然好。不过程度需要有个度。比如说点处来他错了，为何错，然后举一个小例子就可以了。不超过3句话。别写太多。除非，真的错误太少了。
3。你还是照顾30min写吧。考试时候我写了470，23min写完的。我习惯把时间省下来，不喜欢那种多匆忙的感觉。看个人。