Argument37 我的第1篇，0510G同主题第一篇

chenda8201UID: 171368

------题目------
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.

------正文------
The arguer said that the woven baskets were not unique to the Palean people, which based on the discovery, archaeologists found recently, of such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos that is an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea, At the first glance, the reasons that the speaker gave may sound reasonable. But a deep thought of the relationships between the facts that the archaeologists found and the speaker's claims, which could reveal how baseless the conclusion is, in this argument.

In the first place, the arguer oversimplifies the ways that an ancient Palean used when he or she wanted to cross the river. The arguer claims that the Paleans could only have crossed the Brim River that is very deep and broad. As we know, by boat is just one way for crossing a river and there may be a bridge over the river and the Paleans could walk across over the river. In addition, the argument didn't tell us that whether the Brim River was deep and broad in ancient time or in modern time. May be the Brim River is now deep and broad but had been shallow and narrow in ancient time and the Paleans could walk easily across the river water.

Moreover, the arguer fails to establish a corresponding relationship between no evidence showed that exited boats in the time ancient Paleans live and the ancient Paleans didn't have boats. May be some boats existed in Palea in ancient time but the archeologists haven't found the trace yet today. In addition, the speaker arguer that should be the boat that could took the Paleans across the Brim River for the reason that the boat capable of carrying group of people. The conclusion lacks the credibility because ancient Paleans might use raft or canoe to cross the river, which is the case that Paleans could cross the Brim River and took some woven baskets to the Lithos. Meanwhile, the people who lived in Lthios in ancient time might have boats and they may cross the river to the Pelea or took Paleans with the ‘Palean’ baskets to the Lithos.

Finally, the argument is based on a hasty verdict. The speaker argue that the ancient Paleans were no need to crossed the river because there were so many resources, such as buts, berries and small game around where the Paleans lived. On the one hand, the reason showed above cannot prove that the ancient Paleans should not go the Lithos. May be the Lithos, the only place where can made some special tools at that time and Paleans used their woven baskets for changing the useful tools. Or may be the people come from the Lithos made business or did some exchanges in the Palea and took the 'Palean' baskets back to Lthios.

In sum, the speaker makes some false conclusions from some discoveries that the archeologists found recently. Until the archeologists get some new truths that can prove directly that the woven basket is not the unique to the Palean people or the truths that the people live in Lithos could fabricate the woven basket themselves, claims should not be put in a position that the ancient people lived in Lthios also could produced the woven basket themselves.

(543 words)

后记：
第一次开始写，限时不成功，且写后再花了一定时间修改，之前在看issue，还没开始argument，感觉对于找错来批驳不是太难，难在怎么说那个错误到底是属于那种类型的逻辑错误，那些词和句子都很生疏，我想以后接触多了估计会好吧。。。
以后尽量跟着同主题写吧～
请大伙帮忙看看，多谢^_^


.
...
.....

thzx0483UID: 179333

The arguer said that the woven baskets were not unique to the Palean people, which based on the discovery, archaeologists found recently, of such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos that is an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea, [注意标点]At the first glance, the reasons that the speaker gave may sound reasonable. But a deep thought of the relationships between the facts that the archaeologists found and the speaker's claims, which [No which?]could reveal how baseless the conclusion is, in this argument.

In the first place, the arguer oversimplifies the ways that an ancient Palean used when he or she wanted to cross the river. The arguer claims that the Paleans could only have crossed the Brim River that is very deep and broad. As we know, by boat is just one way for crossing a river and there may be a bridge over the river and the Paleans could walk across over the river. In addition, the argument didn't tell us that whether the Brim River was deep and broad in ancient time or in modern time. May be the Brim River is now deep and broad but had been shallow and narrow in ancient time and the Paleans could walk easily across the river water.

Moreover, the arguer fails to establish a corresponding relationship between no evidence showed that exited boats in the time ancient Paleans live and the ancient Paleans didn't have boats. May be some boats existed in Palea in ancient time but the archeologists haven't found the trace yet today. In addition, the speaker arguer that should be the boat that could took the Paleans across the Brim River for the reason that the boat capable of carrying group of people. The conclusion lacks the credibility because ancient Paleans might use raft or canoe to cross the river, which is the case that Paleans could cross the Brim River and took some woven baskets to the Lithos. Meanwhile, the people who lived in Lthios in ancient time might have boats and they may cross the river to the Pelea or took Paleans with the ‘Palean’ baskets to the Lithos.

Finally, the argument is based on a hasty verdict. The speaker argue that the ancient Paleans were no need to crossed the river because there were so many resources, such as buts, berries and small game around where the Paleans lived. On the one hand, the reason showed above cannot prove that the ancient Paleans should not go the Lithos. May be the Lithos, the only place where can made some special tools at that time and Paleans used their woven baskets for changing the useful tools. Or may be [最好换一下说法，如Another possibility is that]the people come from the Lithos made business or did some exchanges in the Palea and took the 'Palean' baskets back to Lthios.

In sum, the speaker makes some false conclusions from some discoveries that the archeologists found recently. Until the archeologists get some new truths that can prove directly that the woven basket is not the unique to the Palean people or the truths that the people live in Lithos could fabricate the woven basket themselves, claims should not be put in a position that the ancient people lived in Lthios also could produced the woven basket themselves.

第一篇能写到这个程度真是太不错了。我个人感觉句式可以再多一些变化。还有就是感觉“充分必要性”错误最重要，最好列在反驳的第一段。个人意见，仅供参考！

songwei1765UID: 202658

Originally posted by chenda8201 at 2005-7-7 10:06
------题目------
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were be ...

The arguer said that the woven baskets were not unique to the Palean people, which based on the discovery, archaeologists found recently, of such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos that is an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea, At the first glance, the reasons that the speaker gave may sound reasonable. But a deep thought of the relationships between the facts that the archaeologists found and the speaker's claims, which could reveal how baseless the conclusion is, in this argument.
In the first place, the arguer oversimplifies the ways that an ancient Palean used when he or she wanted to cross the river. The arguer claims that the Paleans could only have crossed the Brim River that is very deep and broad. As we know, by boat is just one way for crossing a river and there may be a bridge over the river and the Paleans could walk across over the river. In addition, the argument didn't tell us that whether the Brim River was deep and broad in ancient time or in modern time. May be the Brim River is now deep and broad but had been shallow and narrow in ancient time and the Paleans could walk easily across the river water. 这段你提到了这条河deep and broad，其实有一点很明显的逻辑错误就是它deep and broad并不代表ancient P乘船过不了河。当然这河古代时期是不是deep and broad，这应该是次要的。

Moreover, the arguer fails to establish a corresponding relationship between no evidence showed that exited boats in the time ancient Paleans live and the ancient Paleans didn't have boats. May be some boats existed in Palea in ancient time but the archeologists haven't found the trace yet today. In addition, the speaker arguer that should be the boat that could took the Paleans across the Brim River for the reason that the boat capable of carrying group of people. The conclusion lacks the credibility because ancient Paleans might use raft or canoe to cross the river, which is the case that Paleans could cross the Brim River and took some woven baskets to the Lithos. Meanwhile, the people who lived in Lthios in ancient time might have boats and they may cross the river to the Pelea or took Paleans with the ‘Palean’ baskets to the Lithos.这段也不是太抓住重点，关于有P有没有船可归到上面一段和river一起谈。即便没船P还可以用其他工具过河，对吧。作者还假设在千年前ancient P没有制造能具有大容量的大船运载这种篮子过河。这本身也是个错误，那篮子为什么不可能用小船运过去？

Finally, the argument is based on a hasty verdict. The speaker argue that the ancient Paleans were no need to crossed the river because there were so many resources, such as buts, berries and small game around where the Paleans lived. On the one hand, the reason showed above cannot prove that the ancient Paleans should not go the Lithos. May be the Lithos, the only place where can made some special tools at that time and Paleans used their woven baskets for changing the useful tools. Or may be the people come from the Lithos made business or did some exchanges in the Palea and took the 'Palean' baskets back to Lthios.这段你没把你找到的错误说清楚，文中提到P这个地方产很多水果，因此似乎P不用过河也能生活。但作者同样没给出证据证明这些水果是P的人们耐以生存的主食。同时，有这些吃的不代表P人们不过河采购生活必需品。
另外补充一些：
* P即便不过河，不代表L不过河把篮子自己带回家。
* （这点我自己加的，分析里边没有）这个篮子宣称是只在史前村庄P发现过， 但作者并没有提供任何信息表明P这个地方还有这种篮子的生产。如果现在这种篮子在P还同样流行，同样作者也没能证明这个篮子的时期，那么在L发现的篮子有可能并不是千年前的产物，而却存在由现代人从P带到L的可能性。


In sum, the speaker makes some false conclusions from some discoveries that the archeologists found recently. Until the archeologists get some new truths that can prove directly that the woven basket is not the unique to the Palean people or the truths that the people live in Lithos could fabricate the woven basket themselves, claims should not be put in a position that the ancient people lived in Lthios also could produced the woven basket themselves.

第一次写，还行，不过注意多看出题版主给的分析，偶自己写的跟给出的分析也就一点不同。可以去看看，不一定回拍。
http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ Last edited by songwei1765 on 2005-7-7 at 22:50 ]

chenda8201UID: 171368

我现在面临的最大问题之一就是把想说的话准确表达成英文
句式方面欠缺变化，我会多吸取他人文章中的好句子^_^
我这篇Argument就是按照原文的顺序来批驳的，因为我现在对于那些逻辑错误的专业性术语的英文表达还很生疏（加之还没有开始看argument这方面的，之前都是关注issue）；故只能按照顺序展开来驳斥其中的逻辑错误
而且当时限时了，先是看了几遍题目，然后利用v2限时软件来写，故写得很仓促；结果也没能限时写好；当然， 后来再花些时间修改过的
下次我会尝试按照逻辑错误的重要与次要来区分写的

chenda8201UID: 171368

多谢指点，很受启发啊
另：我也去看了你写的Argument37，分析得不错，值得我学习^_^

fhxyweiUID: 157384

Argument37 我的第1篇，0510G同主题第一篇

------题目------
Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is no evidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups of people and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Palean people disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross the river—the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. It follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.

------正文------
The arguer said that the woven baskets were not unique to the Palean people, which based on the discovery, archaeologists found recently, of such a 'Palean' basket in Lithos that is an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea, At the first glance, the reasons that the speaker gave may sound reasonable. But a deep thought of the relationships between the facts that the archaeologists found and the speaker's claims, which could reveal how baseless the conclusion is, in this argument.[开头太长了，实战的时候根本写不了这么多,会浪费宝贵的时间]
In the first place, the arguer oversimplifies the ways that an ancient Palean used when he or she wanted to cross the river. The arguer claims that the Paleans could only have crossed the Brim River that is very deep and broad. As we know, by boat is just one way for crossing a river and there may be a bridge over the river and the Paleans could walk across over the river. In addition, the argument didn't tell us that whether the Brim River was deep and broad in ancient time or in modern time. May be the Brim River is now deep and broad but had been shallow and narrow in ancient time and the Paleans could walk easily across the river water.

Moreover, the arguer fails to establish a corresponding relationship between no evidence showed that exited boats in the time ancient Paleans live and the ancient Paleans didn't have boats. May be some boats existed in Palea in ancient time but the archeologists haven't found the trace yet today. In addition, the speaker arguer that should be the boat that could took the Paleans across the Brim River for the reason that the boat capable of carrying group of people. The conclusion lacks the credibility because ancient Paleans might use raft or canoe to cross the river, which is the case that Paleans could cross the Brim River and took some woven baskets to the Lithos. Meanwhile, the people who lived in Lthios in ancient time might have boats and they may cross the river to the Pelea or took Paleans with the ‘Palean’ baskets to the Lithos.

Finally, the argument is based on a hasty verdict. The speaker argue that the ancient Paleans were no need to crossed the river because there were so many resources, such as buts, berries and small game around where the Paleans lived. On the one hand, the reason showed above cannot prove that the ancient Paleans should not go the Lithos. May be the Lithos, the only place where can made some special tools at that time and Paleans used their woven baskets for changing the useful tools. Or may be the people come from the Lithos made business or did some exchanges in the Palea and took the 'Palean' baskets back to Lthios.

In sum, the speaker makes some false conclusions from some discoveries that the archeologists found recently. Until the archeologists get some new truths that can prove directly that the woven basket is not the unique to the Palean people or the truths that the people live in Lithos could fabricate the woven basket themselves, claims should not be put in a position that the ancient people lived in Lthios also could produced the woven basket themselves.

(543 words)

看了一下，主要的逻辑错误都找出来了，给你点建议：

1，开头结尾不要写的冗长，30分钟你根本写不了543个字，全封闭考试环境下一般只写300-350个字，所以，应当把主要时间用来攻击逻辑错误，而不是在开头结尾多写一些套话。

摘抄一段大牛对ARGUMENT的结构性知道：
ARGUMENT结构性指导
ARGUMENT的结构性比较固定，易于掌握，用过新东方书的考生出手都能写出个标准的
“经典5段（4段）式”，可以说这种模式是完全可以采用，同时也是最好的，最有效
的。相比较其余什么“老管写作模式”，“思马得模板作文”，这种模式是上乘的首
选，而且条理清晰，可读性好，容易方便阅卷人给分。这里由于从网上海量作文习作看
来，几乎所有考生都对ARGUMENT的这种写作模式相当熟悉，因此仅对其中出现的普遍问
题强调和纠正一下：
（1） 开头和结尾：由于ARGUMENT时间的紧迫性，开头和结尾应该尽量简短而明确，其 篇幅总量应不超过正文部分的1/3。很多考生一上来就花了5，6分钟把题干中的论据结 论用复杂的长句子转述，在象征性地于结尾来一句诸如“经过我反复检查，其中论据模 糊，逻辑错误横生”之类的套话。然后在正文又要分条攻击阐述。这是极不科学的“凑
字数”的模式，相信老外阅卷人一天看个百来篇的这类文章，很容易产生“恶意”和
“过敏”，一怒之下有种判为“类同卷”的冲动。正确的做法永远只有，用1——2句话
明明白白告诉阅卷人基本的结论和你的态度，作到简短而有力，让阅卷人一眼就看到你
的观点，并且知道你已经读懂题目并且作了基本的准确回应。罗列证据是留给正文的
事。另外对于结尾，不要总是要告戒出题者要如何如何加强自己的论证，我们往往可以
反其道而行，用上点“讽刺”，“黑色幽默”等手法让枯燥的文章在末尾展示出良好的
可读性，博得阅卷人的“好感”。
（2） 正文：尽管这是逻辑作文，题干给的像以前的逻辑单题，但是她是一种作文，不
是客观题。大量的使用刻板的逻辑句式对于文章的生动性“百害而无一利”。很多考生
背会了什么“孙氏逻辑句法”就在正文处大打出手，用些看上去极能唬人的分析句式，
像逻辑专业出身的人那样，左一句“the arguer commits a fallacy of “false  
analogy”,右一句“the arguer rests his conclusion on the classic logic  
fallacy of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”.连拉丁文都用上了，你说老美做何感
想。按中国人的话说，叫“掉书袋”，当诸位考生还在自我为这种呆板的句式乐此不疲
的时候，你是否留意过GRE作文在你的手下是不是有些散发出像死尸一样的苍白来。作
文者，就是要以“能说明问题”为先，而不是在这里“装神弄鬼”，尽管逻辑方面的论
证我们需要逻辑知识的支撑，但是我们要作好的是只是“借题发挥”，“点到即止”。
正确的做法应该是掌握住“错误”，揪住对方的小辫，然后适当搭配着证据的罗列称
述，合理选用逻辑句式，一说明问题立刻回来，尽量用例证不要去做逻辑上的因果论
证

我自己现在尽量避免这样的问题：）

[ Last edited by fhxywei on 2005-7-8 at 17:03 ]

chenda8201UID: 171368

Argument37 我的第1篇，0510G同主题第一篇

Originally posted by fhxywei at 2005-7-8 16:38

看了一下，主要的逻辑错误都找出来了，给你点建议：

1，开头结尾不要写的冗长，30分钟你根本写不了543个字，全封闭考试环境下一般只写300-350个字，所以，应当把主要时间用来攻击逻辑错误，而不是在开头结尾多写一些套话。

摘抄一段大牛对ARGUMENT的结构性知道：
ARGUMENT结构性指导
ARGUMENT的结构性比较固定，易于掌握，用过新东方书的考生出手都能写出个标准的
“经典5段（4段）式”，可以说这种模式是完全可以采用，同时也是最好的，最有效
的。相比较其余什么“老管写作模式”，“思马得模板作文”，这种模式是上乘的首
选，而且条理清晰，可读性好，容易方便阅卷人给分。这里由于从网上海量作文习作看
来，几乎所有考生都对ARGUMENT的这种写作模式相当熟悉，因此仅对其中出现的普遍问
题强调和纠正一下：
（1） 开头和结尾：由于ARGUMENT时间的紧迫性，开头和结尾应该尽量简短而明确，其 篇幅总量应不超过正文部分的1/3。很多考生一上来就花了5，6分钟把题干中的论据结 论用复杂的长句子转述，在象征性地于结尾来一句诸如“经过我反复检查，其中论据模 糊，逻辑错误横生”之类的套话。然后在正文又要分条攻击阐述。这是极不科学的“凑
字数”的模式，相信老外阅卷人一天看个百来篇的这类文章，很容易产生“恶意”和
“过敏”，一怒之下有种判为“类同卷”的冲动。正确的做法永远只有，用1——2句话
明明白白告诉阅卷人基本的结论和你的态度，作到简短而有力，让阅卷人一眼就看到你
的观点，并且知道你已经读懂题目并且作了基本的准确回应。罗列证据是留给正文的
事。另外对于结尾，不要总是要告戒出题者要如何如何加强自己的论证，我们往往可以
反其道而行，用上点“讽刺”，“黑色幽默”等手法让枯燥的文章在末尾展示出良好的
可读性，博得阅卷人的“好感”。
（2） 正文：尽管这是逻辑作文，题干给的像以前的逻辑单题，但是她是一种作文，不
是客观题。大量的使用刻板的逻辑句式对于文章的生动性“百害而无一利”。很多考生
背会了什么“孙氏逻辑句法”就在正文处大打出手，用些看上去极能唬人的分析句式，
像逻辑专业出身的人那样，左一句“the arguer commits a fallacy of “false  
analogy”,右一句“the arguer rests his conclusion on the classic logic  
fallacy of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”.连拉丁文都用上了，你说老美做何感
想。按中国人的话说，叫“掉书袋”，当诸位考生还在自我为这种呆板的句式乐此不疲
的时候，你是否留意过GRE作文在你的手下是不是有些散发出像死尸一样的苍白来。作
文者，就是要以“能说明问题”为先，而不是在这里“装神弄鬼”，尽管逻辑方面的论
证我们需要逻辑知识的支撑，但是我们要作好的是只是“借题发挥”，“点到即止”。
正确的做法应该是掌握住“错误”，揪住对方的小辫，然后适当搭配着证据的罗列称
述，合理选用逻辑句式，一说明问题立刻回来，尽量用例证不要去做逻辑上的因果论
证

刚才限时写了argument50，感觉挺难的。。。又觉得很多模板句子老是不会用；回过头来看看这个fhxywei摘抄来的建议，觉得受益良多～多谢啦:)