argument61 "决战830拍砖组™"8月15日作业 同主题高频兄弟们狂拍

林森森UID: 163922

420 words
------题目------
The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.
'Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years.'
------正文------
Merely based upon the dubious and unfounded evidence, the arguer attempts to assume us that it is not necessary for the Eyleria's K-12 schools' budget to spend on computers or other technology in the next few years. To substantiate his claim, the arguer cites the ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12. In addition, he assumes that all students across the country have access to and can use computers daily in their classroom. Furthermore, the arguer indicates that by the time all of Eyleria's student graduate from high school will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. As the argument stands, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to emphasize, may undermine the line of reasoning.

The first and most glaring err in logic lies in the fact that the ratio of computer to students, which educators indicates very appropriate, does not necessarily represent all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. Because, considering from common sense, most students in kindergarten at the age full of curiosities, it is essential to meet their need to operate computers. With the ratio 1:5, which means only one kid in five can practically operate computer at a single time. In other words, for instance, a kid has to wait 4 times as long as the time when he can use computer.  Thus, this ratio can hardly assure all the students to make good use of computer.

In addition, it is unreliable to assert that by the time the students graduate from high school, the mentioned ratio 1:7 is sufficient can ensure all of Eyleria's students' use of computer. As is known to all, the knowledge in technology, especially in computer technology varies and renews from one day to another. It changes so rapidly that no one can assure one can be fully proficient in the use of a computer without renew for one or two years, let alone when the students graduates from high school.

Furthermore, as has been partially mentioned in the last paragraph, the hardware of a computer go out of date at an unimaginable rate, to renew it is essential. And hence, large amount of the schools' budget should be spent on computers and other technology related to them to meet the students' rapid-growing needs.

In summary, this reasoning seems logical as presented above. However, the conclusion reached in this argument is misleading and invalid. To better evaluate the argument we would need more valid evidence and more reliable argumentation.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-17 at 13:04 ]

yxepochUID: 2124411

------题目------
The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.
'Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years.'
------正文------
Merely based upon the dubious and unfounded evidence, the arguer attempts to assume us that it is not necessary for the Eyleria's K-12 schools' budget to spend on computers or other technology in the next few years. To substantiate his claim, the arguer cites the ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12. In addition, he assumes that all students across the country have access to and can use computers daily in their classroom. Furthermore, the arguer indicates that by the time all of Eyleria's student graduate from high school will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. As the argument stands, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to emphasize, may undermine the line of reasoning.
很不错的一段哦,尤其喜欢最后一句话,赞!

The first and most glaring err in logic lies in the fact that the ratio of computer to students, which educators indicates very appropriate(appropriately), does not necessarily represent all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. Because, considering from common sense(commen sese tells us更好吧) , most students in kindergarten at the age full of curiosities, it is essential to meet their need to operate computers. With the ratio 1:5, which means only one kid in five can practically operate computer at a single time. In other words, for instance, a kid has to wait 4 times as long as the time when he can use computer.  Thus, this ratio can hardly assure all the students to make good use of computer.
(我觉得虽然讲地通,但如果是我写,我会写1:5的在幼儿园的比例并不能说明across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms)

In addition, it is unreliable to assert that by the time the students graduate from high school, the mentioned ratio 1:7 is sufficient can ensure all of Eyleria's students' use of computer(that all the Eyleria's students can be fully proficient in the use of computer technology.) As is known to all, the knowledge in technology, especially in computer technology varies and renews from one day to another(day by day吧,简洁明了). It changes so rapidly that no one can assure one can be fully proficient in the use of a computer without renew for one or two years, let alone when the students graduates from high school.

Furthermore, as has been partially mentioned in the last paragraph, the hardware of a computer go out of date at an unimaginable rate, to renew it is essential. And hence, large amount of the schools' budget should be spent on computers and other technology related to them to meet the students' rapid-growing needs.
(还有一个可能性就是未来几年的学生人数增加,即使原来够用的电脑今后也不够用了,因而要增加budget,添进去可以让本段更充实一点)

In summary, this reasoning seems logical as presented above. However, the conclusion reached in this argument is misleading and invalid. To better evaluate the argument we would need more valid evidence and more reliable argumentation.

我觉得全文很流畅,不知道其他战友怎么看,但我是很喜欢看森森写的文章的,文笔很漂亮,可见是个高手,提不出什么更详细的意见了,希望以上的那些能对你有帮助!