本帖最后由 bernina 于 2009-4-3 20:36 编辑
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the 3，emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in 2streets or parking lots were not wearing any 1，protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in 4，high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will 4，greatly reduce their risk of being 3,severely injured in an accident.
说题目：大家觉得这是个什么类型的题目呢？解决问题型？我觉得还有点像做广告，暂且定为解决问题型吧。大家觉不觉的这个和那个牙膏的那片很像，那个是叫大家不要干什么，而这个是让大家干什么。这篇一开头也有个hospital statistics 大家一定很想很批一顿吧，恩，心情我可以理解，但是，让我们来仔细分析一下，看看这个到底应不应该质疑数据，应该怎么质疑？
绿色的，是我认为有问题的一些关键词，大家先想想为什么这些词有问题，也可以找找看有没有别的了
我用浅橙色画出来的这句话，大致一看是说high-quality protective gear 能够帮助rollerskater 减少伤害的程度，但是仔细一看发现，题目说的其实是，high-quality protective gear 和 reflective equipment能帮助rollerstater减少受到严重伤害的几率。大家体会一下啊，这个明显不成立么。
作者目的：解决rollerstater’s sever accidents 的问题
因为：有一个hospital statistics 说75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.).
所以
protective equipment 和reflective equipment能帮助rollerstaters 不受严重的伤害
大家觉得他的推理有问题么？我总结一下它的逻辑有如下几点：
1，
头盔和护膝能很大程度的减少严重伤害发生的可能性。
2，
反光材料也能帮助人们避免受到严重的伤害
3，
有保护措施的人之所以没有受伤就完全因为这些保护措施很到位
4，
rollerskaters只会出现在street or parking lots
5，
去emergency room 的人都是severely injured in an accident
6，
高质量的gear 就比普通的gear保护性能好，非要是高质量的才能帮助人们避免受伤。
这是我总结的作者的逻辑漏洞，大家可以继续brainstorming 一下
看看范文怎么理解的：
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occuring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may 1，mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may 2，inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.
这个开头很不错，先说出这篇文章貌似很合理，毕竟these products 是保护人们的，但是，作者接着又用两点将自己的质疑概括出来了，标准开头，我们应该像这个方向努力。
6 u7 U1 y6 r- S& |& v) q3 l' B
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear -- preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.
大家体会一下这段，短文目的是说这些东西可以帮人们减少伤害，这段作者将protective gear 和 preventative gear分开说，说这两种不一样，并且说了这两种东西保护rollerskater 都是有前提的，大家可以体会一下，他这段这么一说，让大觉得短文太武断了，接着，作者又说了，你如果想让你的文章更有说服力一些那么你应该提供一些更有说服力，更详细的数据。大家发现没？作者并没有直接说数据怎么了怎么了，而是用这样的说法，大家绝不觉得更具体，逻辑更清晰呢？我觉得这也是质疑数据的一种很好的方法。
还有就是，大家注意到没，这一个数据想要说明两个东西，太笼统，太概括了。我之前一直都没有发现这个问题，但是这篇范文告诉我们了，如果以后遇到这样用一个数据概括两个东西的文章，我们也应该这样质疑，显得逻辑非常之清晰。学习了~
The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. 1，If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. 2，Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.
看看，这段也是个精彩的逻辑补充，大家仔细看看，像不像牙膏那篇：
1，
有保护措施的rollerskaters 说明他们本身就很注意自己的安全，他们不会做一些危险的动作，是因为他们自己很注意，所以才没有受到伤害，那么，作者的言下之意就是说这些去emergency room 的rollerskaters 都是自找的！是不是和牙膏那个很像？
2，
说这个数据仅仅调查了在马路上或停车场玩的rollerskaters。你说你玩轮滑去哪不好，非要去那些危险的，车多的地方，你是不是自找的？我读到这里的时候，我觉得这个调查的目的到底是什么？是让大家穿上这些equipments 再去马路上和停车场玩还是让大家玩的时候最好不要去那些危险的地方，当然除非你想找刺激。
这里就说了个调查和作者目的的逻辑相关性，这段不属于质疑数据，仅仅是质疑短文的逻辑。大家要抓住逻辑漏洞而不是数据本身。
The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries1， suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case.Also, 2， given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.
这点我没有想到，作者真是思维很严密啊~~ 他说了两点：
1，
不一定去emergency room 的人都是严重的伤害，说实话，我觉得这个有点牵强，如果不是严重的病，去emergency room 干什么？
2，
他给了个解释说医院的人下班了，所以只能去emergency room，这个倒有点道理，但如果他是解释上一点的，为什么要加上个also，我不明白，希望大家帮我解惑。
关于什么情况下去emergency room，学医的某位出来解释下哈~~
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.
这段作者紧紧抓住了一个关键词：high-quality
难道仅仅是high-quality 才能保护大家么？我读到这个high-quality的时候觉得这篇短文简直就是做广告的，为什么别的不行偏偏要high-quality? 是不是你就是个生产所谓high-quality products的公司？你要价钱很高所以标榜你的products是high-quality让大家相信仅仅有high-quality 的才能起到保护作用所以高价也愿意买？
大家注意了，作者没有仅仅说high-quality的问题，他还引入了more expensive这个才是大家所关心的，如果仅仅说high-quality 是很无力的。大家体会一下… …
The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed.
After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.
结尾段，作者的语气叫一个诚恳啊，大家体会到了吧，他说这个argument 的却可以披露一些重要的信息，但是，你不能随便做结论啊，你说保护措施重要很对，但是是不是有更重要的你没有考虑到呢？人的安全不在于他有没有穿这些high-quality的 equipments 而是他到底有没有意识到应该如何保护自己，如果他没有这个意识的话，穿在好的都没有用。
好了，来看看comments 这篇文章没有批评，只有表扬，还说如果作者不说这么多也可以得到六分~~汗~
1，inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear 这个是作者的落脚点，这样的落脚点被rater特别拿出来说了一下，说明他的立场选择的很好，大家可以体会一下，作者在末段说了这个数据确实重要，但是你的结论有些误导性，让大家去买protective gear 而不是让大家提高安全意识，这是不对的。所以我们在写类似又像解决问题型，又像建议型的文章时，也要站在这样的立场上展开论述。
2，肯定了作者找出的几个逻辑漏洞，我们来看下：
（1）that preventive and protective gear are not the same 就是说一个调查不能说明两个问题，大家开始学习了啊，以后看到这类的statistics 或者survey 大家就这样说。
（2）that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious 没有wear gear的人可能对受这点伤不在乎，可能就是找刺激的，所以就算他们穿了high-quality portective equipments 也会受伤。
（3）that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries
数据并没有说受的伤有多么严重，也许仅仅是小伤，而玩这种东西受点伤是很正常的。
（4）that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial 说了high-quality不一定就比一般的好。
大家注意到了吧，这刚好就是文章的四段，再看看我在a里面标出的数字，是不是可以对应上？其中emergency room 和severely injured联系在了一起，错误的认为如果去了emergency room 那就一定是severely injured，这个我不太了解，就不做解释了… sigh..
还有第四点错误的吧 high-quality protective gear 和 greatly reduce 联系在了一起。
大家可以体会一下，这里面有很多都是形容词，是不是我们以后看到形容词的时候也要考虑考虑呢？不能再让他们从我们的眼皮底下溜走了~~~大家注意啊，要让自己变得火眼晶晶~
恩 我说句题外话，我有一首很喜欢的歌，如果觉得很烦躁，很blue的时候，就听听，每次都会很感动，特别是那句，i can make you happy make your dreams come ture~~~~ 呵呵，很温暖，大家听听吧~~ 特别是喜欢RONAN KEATING的。 http://bt.lonelylive.cn/defender.wma?c=dD0xMjM4NzU0MTE5Jmk9MjIyLjE2OC44MS4xNzQmdT1Tb25ncy92MS9mYWludFFDLzIzL2I4ZmEzNGMyMDkxNjgxMzQ0OWFhZGNjYzNkZGY3NjIzLndtYSZtPTE2MjVhNjI4OGFhMDgyMmFmZWJlNzYwOGZjMTQ5NDA1JnY9bGlzdGVuJm49TWFrZSUyMFlvdSUyMEZlZWwlMjBNeSUyMExvdmUmcz3C3sTPJTIwu/nNog==
| 
发表于 2009-4-3 18:18:40
发表于 2009-4-3 18:29:36
发表于 2009-4-3 18:41:36
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
