issue137 同主题写作附提纲,恳请大家狠拍!

phobeUID: 199595

137The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.
'At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.'
提纲：1 很少人去M河的原因可能不是人们认为河水太脏，那份调查不可信。
      2 不能保证计划一定能有效改善水质量。
      3 即使水干净，人们不一定愿意去
      4 即使水变干净后很多人乐意去，现有的土地可能已经满足需要，没必要改进

The editorial recommends that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because the recreational use of the river is likely to increase after the plan which is going to be taken by the agency. He also points out that the reason why the river is under little use is that river is not clean according to the survey. The perspective, be it seemly eloquent, suffers from several critical fallacies.

The evidence given is not sufficient in itself to prove that the present situation that people seldom go to the Mason River is attributed to that people think that the river is not clean enough relying on the complaints. How many complaints were there? Moreover, since there have been complaints, what about the present situation? Absent information about these questions, the editorial’s reasoning is unpersuasive. There are a myriad of other reasons contributing to this present situation. Perhaps the river flows so rapidly that there are so many whirlpools, which makes the river unsuitable for recreational activity. Or perhaps the facilities along the river is not good enough to attract people that people would prefer to go to beaches where there are better facilities to enjoy themselves. Or people dare not to play in the river because there are dangerous fish in the river. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the editorial's conclusion.

Secondly, the editorial bases his conclusion on the unsubstantiated assumption that the new plan would surely clean the river. However, he provides no evidence to support it. In all likelihood the river was so seriously polluted that it can be hardly improved. Or the formidable project needs much money which the agency can hardly afford. Moreover, what does the agency plan to do? Will the plan be effective? Destitute of information about these questions, the editorial's conclusion is dubious at best. Granted that the river will become clean enough, no evidence indicates that people would like to go there for recreational activity. The editorial leaves the possibility open that people are already costumed to go to other places with better facilities to do recreational activity even if the river is quite clean.

Even assuming that more people would like to the river for recreational activity, the editorial makes a hasty conclusion that the publicly owned lands should be improved. Since there have such a long time that people seldom go there, most of the publicly owned lands along the river are left free. Even the river becomes popular after the promotion of the plan; the present lands may still satisfy people's needs. An increase of the budget to improve the lands is undoubtedly to be a waste.

In sum, the recommendation is unreasonable as it stands. To bolster his perspective, the editorial should give more evidence to prove that the present situation that people seldom go to the river for recreational activity is due to that people think it is not clean. Moreover, additional evidence is needed to convince us that the plan will be successful to make the river clean and people would like to go there after the improvement. An investigation is also needed to find out whether the present publicly owned lands are sufficient enough to satisfy people's need.

AlexandraUID: 185174

先烤了 下午回

fishtutuUID: 199884

占位!

tz0412UID: 180794

先占个座吧，感觉1和3重复了，是同一个错误，都是忽略了其他原因。

AlexandraUID: 185174

issue137 同主题写作附提纲,恳请大家狠拍!  (phone)

137The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.
'At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.'
提纲：1 很少人去M河的原因可能不是人们认为河水太脏，那份调查不可信。
      2 不能保证计划一定能有效改善水质量。
      3 即使水干净，人们不一定愿意去
      4 即使水变干净后很多人乐意去，现有的土地可能已经满足需要，没必要改进

[提纲 4段， 怎么只有 3段？？？]
[很有挑战的文章啊 ——以我的水平来看。  我当时找错误， 都 很紧张啊。   本来 我还打算 半夜自己写一篇啊。]
[提纲中， 我感觉 1和 3  很可能会重复。不 知道你下面会怎么写。 还有我很怀疑 你的提纲啊  自己觉得这样分不好。 看你的文章先  。]


The editorial recommends that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to  [句子有问题]  the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because the recreational use of the river is likely to increase after the plan which is going to be taken by the agency. He also points out that the reason why the river is under little use is that river is not clean according to the survey.  [句子问题]  The perspective, be it seemly eloquent,  [没看 明白 ，句子的结构， 希望战友你 提醒一下。 嘿嘿]   suffers from several critical fallacies.

The evidence given is not sufficient in itself to prove that the present situation that people seldom go to the Mason River is attributed to that people think that the river is not clean enough relying on the complaints. How many complaints were there?  [句子太长了。]   Moreover, since there have been complaints, what about the present situation? Absent information about these questions, the editorial’s  [] reasoning is unpersuasive. There are a myriad of other reasons contributing to this present situation. Perhaps the river flows so rapidly that there are so many whirlpools, which makes the river unsuitable for recreational activity.  [绝 这你都想得到啊  你太帅了！ 不过，既然是一条nearby 的  River，， 我还是不敢说， 它会急啊—— 地理位置问题啊] Or perhaps the facilities along the river is not good enough to attract people [有点牵强啊]that people would prefer to go to beaches where there are better facilities to enjoy themselves. Or people dare not to play  [句子有问题] in the river because there are dangerous fish in the river. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the editorial's conclusion.
[建议在首句加个 逻辑词；  忍不住 再赞一个：你太 帅了， 这样的可能性 你都能想得出——呵呵 以后我想不到的 请教你啊]
[调查的是人们的 爱好。好象没有说 抱怨也是调查的一个部分啊？？ 是不是啊？ 我也晕了]

Secondly, the editorial bases his conclusion on the unsubstantiated assumption that the new plan would surely clean the river. However, he provides no evidence to support it. In all likelihood [是单数， 还是 复数？？ 我查查先 ] the river was so seriously polluted that （it can be hardly improved  这也有不足） [整个句子也不对啊？？  我再看看 ] . Or the formidable project needs much money which the agency can hardly afford[牵强]. Moreover, what does the agency plan to do? Will the plan be effective? Destitute [这个 词 不够准确]of information about these questions, the editorial's conclusion is dubious at best.[？？？] Granted that the river will become clean enough, no evidence indicates that people would like to go there for recreational activity. The editorial leaves the possibility open that people are already costumed to go to other places with better facilities to do recreational activity even if the river is quite clean. [这个句式，你能跟我讲讲吗， 我很怀疑啊 还有原因，我也觉得 很牵强啊 ，在力度上。  我们 讨论一下 可以吗？]
[仍然觉得， 你找的错误， 我觉得 不是很重要啊——不过 嘿嘿，可能是我  太笨， 本来好好的错误没有让我找到]

Even assuming that more people would like to the river [少了什么吧] for recreational activity [换个词吧， 你已经用了不下 3次了。。。], the editorial makes a hasty conclusion  [ 句式也重复了——可能我太苛刻了。。。]that the publicly owned lands  should be improved. Since there have such a long time that people seldom go there, most of the publicly owned lands along the river are left free. Even the river becomes popular after the promotion of the plan; the present lands may still satisfy people's needs. An increase of the budget to improve the lands is undoubtedly to be a waste.
[这里， 我可以 理直气壮的 告诉你，你犯了一个严重的错误。 在狗狗 中， 你只能 找人家的逻辑错误——即，说 人家的前提 到人家的结论，在逻辑上 怎么怎么不严密。你不应该在文章 中表达 你个人对 文章所谈论的 事情的看法。 ——有没有 必要改进， 不是我们要说的事情。你只要 说作者的 分析和“证据”，得不到 那个 结论，就行了。]
[不过， 你也 别灰心， 不是 还有20天吗？  好好干！ 一定可以 写得 更好的。 错误现在发现 是好事啊！！ ]

In sum, the recommendation is unreasonable as it stands. To bolster his perspective, the editorial should give more evidence to prove that the present situation that people seldom go to the river for recreational activity is due to that people think it is not clean. Moreover, additional evidence is needed to convince us that the plan will be successful to make the river clean and people would like to go there after the improvement. An investigation is also needed to find out whether the present publicly owned lands are sufficient enough to satisfy people's need.  （不好意思 偷懒一下，结尾不看了 吃饭去。）


小结：
由提纲 看出， 你对文章， 了解得 不是很深。
在 想怎样 写你的文章时，你的 编排，做得不够好
应该找 重要的错误， 别在小节上大做文章。
你对词语的驾驭， 我感觉 不是很好。
还有， 对题目中出现过的意思， 在你的文章中， 要再次出现， 我建议你完美改写原来的句子。——可能我太苛刻了
还有， 开头跟结尾， 建议你花点时间建立 自己的风格， 可以找精华区的文章来参考。但是 要至少改掉 三个地方哦。因为 狗狗的错误，就这些，人人都找。你的文章没有自己的风格在 里面，很难拿高分。 对吧？？

以上讨论 仅是 个人愚见，  不对的地方  请指正——呵呵 不然，我可白改了。

呵呵你写的， 比我 对着电脑写的好—— 加油哦！！！！！ 我支持你！！！！！ 好战友！！

phobeUID: 199595

文章的提纲确实很不准确,麻烦大家先看一眼我改过后的提纲:
(1)原文用一个survey说人们很喜欢水上娱乐活动,但人们很少去M河,然后用there have been complaints说水质不好---->因为人们觉得水质不好,所以人们不愿意去M做娱乐活动
攻击点:complaits 不足以说明因为人们觉得水质不好,所以人们不愿意去M做娱乐活动

(2)原文agency有个改善水的计划------>水质改善------->人们会去M河娱乐
攻击点:agency可能不能改善水(水质很难改善;工程巨大agency财礼不足,没法改善),然后一笔带过攻击后面那个点:水质改善了,人们也不去M河旅游.

(3)去M河玩的人增加------->增加对publicly owned lands 的预算
攻击点:即使去M河的人增加了,也可能不要增加预算(现有的lands能满足增加之后的要求)
这是我攻击的思路,直到现在还没发现什么不妥,麻烦大家指教

to 乌龟
1第一句我是照抄文章的最后一句,大体没问题,只不过就象你说的不能照抄罢了.看过你的文章,我的第一段可改为:
Giving some evidence and analysis, the speaker recommends that the budget for improvements on the publicly owned lands should be increased for recreational use of the river is likely to increase.The perspective,be it seemly eloquent,suffers from several critical fallacies. 你觉得这样如何?这种形式的模板我觉得改动余地不大,雷同几率会很大吗?
其中最后一句是从新东方学来的be it seemly eloquent ,是一个倒装,谓语动词提前用原形吧
2本段我主要攻击complaints,和那个survey 没啥关系,抱歉当时提纲写的有误.in all likelihood表示很有可能,destitute和absent用作介词的表意一样,是新东方老师的强烈推荐词汇,那个the speaker leaves the possibility open that 是从北美范文中学的,那个that 是possibility的同谓语,置后
3这段我和你分歧最大,原文是so the concil will need to,出现so 不是一个很重要的攻击点吗?
哎呀,说到这,我还是没发现我找的错误有什么不对.乌龟,咱们明天继续讨论吧

fishtutuUID: 199884

乌龟改得好详细!看来我只能凑凑热闹了！

phobeUID: 199595

1 你的攻击点是survey,这个是无数范文中用到的点,无非就是说什么sample,或是the people surveyed can not typical the whole population,这些我觉得套话太多,放在第一段的首要位置有点不合适,我觉得老美一看就挺烦的,然后你攻击的是人们即使喜欢水上娱乐活动不一定是因为认为水不干净,岂不是又回到我的comlaints了吗?我当时觉得既然complaints那个点我能够很清楚的表达,那我就没必要攻击survey了吧.哎:L我也有点糊涂了,可能是应该先一笔带过survey这个点,然后来个让步说even if the survey is statistically reliable.......如何?

2"即使 大家愿意  也许, 本身这条河 不适合 作为娱乐 场所.  ----河本身的问题."

我觉得不好,你这个还还不是又要回到他因法,反正我觉得容易和第一段表现手法重复,除非你第一段只打算强调survey那个点,可那样就没新意了,容易套话满天

3"那  动手 整理这条 河后,  能符合 大家的标准吗?   要是不符合大家的 喜好,  没有人愿意去.那 作者 后面 说的, 就不可能 成为现实."

你这个就回到了我的第二点,

In sum,我还是觉得我的攻击点找的比较好:O,这个我觉得你就漏了一个很重要的点,就是我的第三段,原文是recreational use of the river is likely to increase------>, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.'这个因果可是不容忽视的哦,所以我就说即使那个use增加,也不能导致so的结果,具体原因见文章

4"第三段中, 我说的原因 牵强 中 , 比如eople are already costumed to go to other places , 我觉得, 要说的 可能, 想让别人信服, 是不是应该找些 比较有可能 的而 作者 没有指出的??   

我的意思是即使水被改善了,人们也不一定愿意去,因为水上娱乐并不仅仅是水质,还有娱乐措施,比如说我就愿意去海边玩,可以冲浪什么的,不牵强啊
谢谢指教拉!:)

fishtutuUID: 199884

昨天改完了竟忘了发!晕!



提纲中， 我感觉 1和 3  很可能会重复。不 知道你下面会怎么写。 还有我很怀疑 你的提纲啊  自己觉得这样分不好。 看你的文章先  。同意乌龟的！


The editorial recommends that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to  the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because the recreational use of the river is likely to increase after the plan which is going to be taken by the agency. He also points out that the reason why the river is under little use is that river is not clean according to the survey.   The perspective, be it seemly eloquent,  suffers from several critical fallacies.
同意乌龟的！郁闷！我都没话讲了！
The evidence given is not sufficient in itself to prove that the present situation that people seldom go to the Mason River is attributed to that people think that the river is not clean enough relying on the complaints. How many complaints were there?  可以举个例子   Moreover, since there have been complaints, what about the present situation?  可以举个例子  Absent information about these questions, the editorial’s   reasoning is unpersuasive. There are aa myriad of other reasons contributing to this present situation. Perhaps the river flows so rapidly that there are so many whirlpools, which makes the river unsuitable for recreational activity.  赞一个！ Or perhaps the facilities along the river is not good enough to attract people 详细点that people would prefer to go to beaches where there are better facilities to enjoy themselves. Or people dare not to play  in the river because there are dangerous fish in the river.好有想象力！ Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the editorial's conclusion.

Secondly, the editorial bases his conclusion on the unsubstantiated assumption that the new plan would surely clean the river. However, he provides no evidence to support it. In all likelihood  the river was so seriously polluted that it can be hardly improved . Or the formidable project needs much money which the agency can hardly afford牵强. Moreover, what does the agency plan to do? Will the plan be effective? Destitute of information about these questions, the editorial's conclusion is dubious at best.？？？ Granted that the river will become clean enough, no evidence indicates that people would like to go there for recreational activity. The editorial leaves the possibility open that people are already costumed to go to other places with better facilities to do recreational activity even if the river is quite clean. 句子不错的说，呵呵！有很多我还不会用

Even assuming that more people would like to the river for recreational activity, the editorial makes a hasty conclusion  that the publicly owned lands  should be improved. Since there have such a long time that people seldom go there, most of the publicly owned lands along the river are left free. Even the river becomes popular after the promotion of the plan; the present lands may still satisfy people's needs. An increase of the budget to improve the lands is undoubtedly to be a waste.
——有没有 必要改进， 不是我们要说的事情。你只要 说作者的 分析和“证据”，得不到 那个 结论，就行了。不同意乌龟这个看法,这个应该也行的，因为the author does not provide credible evidence to support this conclusion

In sum, the recommendation is unreasonable as it stands. To bolster his perspective, the editorial should give more evidence to prove that the present situation that people seldom go to the river for recreational activity is due to that people think it is not clean. Moreover, additional evidence is needed to convince us that the plan will be successful to make the river clean and people would like to go there after the improvement. An investigation is also needed to find out whether the present publicly owned lands are sufficient enough to satisfy people's need.  结尾不用这么长，感觉你应该要侧重中间的几段，要深入分析。 论据要充分点