2. 零散板油作文互改大贴（ARGUMENT）！请仔细阅读一楼要求，新规正式运行！
[size=4][color=red][b]重要提示：本贴仅为ARGUMENT习作互改！！[/b][/color][/size][color=white][/color]
[size=4]ISSUE互改请点击[url=http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-1146235-1-1.html]http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-1146235-1-1.html[/url]
[/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]-----------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black] [/color][/size][/color][/size]
[align=center][size=5][b][color=red]前言[/color][/b][/size]
[/align]
[size=4][color=darkred][size=4][color=black][b][size=3]互改作文[/size][/b][size=3]被公认为[b]最有效率、操作性[/b]的练习方法。大家[b]取长补短[/b]。[b]付出多少，得到多少[/b]。[/size][/color][/size][size=3][color=red][b]
为保证本贴的秩序，请大家[u]仔细阅读以下的条款[/u][/b][/color][/size][size=3][b][color=red]，[/color][color=blue]只需花2分钟即可。[/color][/b][/size][size=3][color=black]希望大家积极配合，严格遵守互改规则，这样最终大家[b]每一个人都是受益者[/b]。
[/color][/size][size=3][color=darkred]
[b]参与对象[/b]：[/color][/size][size=3][color=black]主要针对尚未加入任何小组的零散板油[/color][/size][size=3][color=black]，但[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=3][color=darkred][color=darkred][color=black]任何太傻版友都可以随时参加！[/color][/color][/color][/size][size=3][color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[b]目标[/b]：[/color][color=black]互改作文。[/color]
[color=white][/color]
[color=darkred][b]原则[/b]：[/color][/color][/size][size=3][color=darkred][color=black][b][u]权力与义务对等[/u][/b][/color][/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=4][color=black][size=3]，即当且仅当[color=red]帮[/color]别人改一篇习作方可获得[color=red]被[/color]别人改一篇习作的资格。[/size]
[/color][/size][color=blue][size=2] [/size][/color]
[/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]-----------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]
[color=white][/color]
[/color][/size][/color][/size][align=center][size=5][color=red][b]具体操作分三步[/b][/color][/size]
[/align][size=4][color=darkred][color=black][b]
[size=3]1、首先[/size][/b][size=3]跟帖占一层楼写上“占位改**楼”的字样，但是不急着修改，以防被人占楼；
[color=white][/color]
[b]2、然后[color=red]立马[/color][/b]将自己的一篇习作跟贴发上来；
[color=white][/color]
[/size][size=3]3、[b]第三步[/b]才是[b][color=red]返回编辑[/color][/b]第一个帖子[b][color=red]修改[/color][/b]别人的文章[/size][/color][/color][/size][size=3]。[/size]
[size=4][color=darkred]
[/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]-----------------------------------------------------------------------[/color][/size][/color][/size][size=4][color=darkred][size=2][color=black]
[color=white][/color]
[/color][/size][/color][/size][align=center][size=4][color=darkred][size=5][color=red][b]注意事项[/b][/color][/size][/color][/size]
[color=white][/color]
[/align][size=3][color=darkred]（1）[color=red][b]选择楼层原则[/b][/color][color=red]：[/color][/color][/size][size=3][color=darkred][color=black][b][color=blue]接龙[/color][/b]——[b][u]按楼层由近及远顺序[/u][/b]选择[b]最近一楼[/b]的[color=blue][b]未被修改且具备被修改资格[/b][/color][/color][/color][/size][size=3][color=black]（点击每层楼左上角的“只看该作者”可知[/color]）[/size][size=3][color=darkred][color=black]的版友习作进行修改，一般是[b]你修改贴的上一楼[/b][/color][color=black]。[/color][color=darkred]不允许随意挑楼层的作文改，否则扣威望1分[/color]。
[color=white][/color]
（2）[color=red][b]特殊情况：[/b][/color][color=black]如果目前[u][b]没有可供修改的文章[/b][/u]，请[b][u]等上一楼贴出来[/u][/b]修改。
[color=white][/color]
[/color][color=black][color=sienna]（3）[/color][/color][color=red][b]违规将严惩：
A. 只允许接龙，不允许随意选择楼层修改，违者删待修改的习作！
B. 占楼须立马修改，在24小时内未完成修改的，扣1威望！
C. 只发习作，不修改他人习作者，删习作并扣1威望！
D. 修改他人习作应付差事者，视情况只加1－2威望！
E. 提倡发全文，对修改习作仅上传附件的版友，加威望会有所保留！
F. 互改两帖之外的帖子直接删除，有问题交流可发站内短信！
[/b][/color]
（4）[b][color=red]批改[/color][color=red]要求[/color][color=red]：[/color][u][color=black]认真、仔细、负责[/color][/u][/b][color=black]。
[b][u]在文中[/u][/b]进行[u][b]具体[/b][/u]的修改，[b][u]在最后[/u][/b]提出文字上、结构上、立意上等不同方面的较为完整的[b][u]评论[/u][/b]，以及，更为重要的是，[u]你的[b]建议[/b][/u]。[/color][/color]
[/size][size=3][color=darkred][color=#000000][/color]
[color=black][color=sienna]（5）[/color][/color][color=red][b]习作要求[/b]：[/color][color=black]提交前首先自己[b][u]用word检查语法错误[/u]并自己改到满意为止[/b]，尊重别人的时间，别人也会尊重你的时间。为方便大家阅读，可以[b][u]附上自己的中文提纲[/u][/b]。[/color]
[color=#8b0000] [/color][color=darkred] [/color]
[color=black][color=sienna]（6）[/color][b][color=red]如何编辑？[/color][/b]点击帖子右下方的“[b]编辑”[/b]按钮即可对已经发上的帖子进行反复编辑。[/color][/color]
[color=white][/color]
[color=black][color=sienna]（7）[/color][b][color=red]如何举报他人违规？[/color][/b]请去专用的投诉＋处理贴：[url=http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-1349164-1-1.html]http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-1349164-1-1.html[/url]，不要在本帖发布举报信息，以免破坏接龙规则。[/color][/size]
[size=4][color=darkred][size=3]
[/size][size=3][color=darkred][color=blue][b]再一次重申总的原则：[/b][/color]
[color=white][/color]
[/color][/size][size=3][color=darkred][b]只有你[u]认真[/u]修改了别人的习作，别人才会修改你的习作！[/b][/color][/size][size=3][/size][/color][size=2][color=black]
[/color][/size][/size]
[color=white][/color]
[quote]
[size=4][color=blue][b]09.8.6更新：
[color=white][/color]
我已对规则进行了简化，请严格遵守！有问题或建议请PM我。
[color=white][/color]
追溯至2009年8月1日起，每一篇认真修改的文章，奖励3-5威望！
——comorain
[/b][/color][/size][/quote]
[[i] 本帖最后由 comorain 于 2009-9-26 14:06 编辑 [/i]] 以下为旧版本互改大贴里面遗留的待修改的文章。
如有遗漏，请尽快短信通知我，或者跟贴都行
[[i] 本帖最后由 mike87227 于 2009-2-7 16:53 编辑 [/i]]
原389楼 dingweiyuan大作
[color=red][size=4][align=left][font=Arial][size=10.5pt][font=Helvetica][size=1][color=black]51 The following appeared in a medical newsletter."Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."===
[/color][/size][/font][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=1][color=black][size=10.5pt]In this argument, the arguer advocates that the healing of severe muscle strain will be slowed down by secondary infections and all patients suffering from muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics to treat their illness. To bolster this argument, the arguer cites the result of a recent study in which the group of Dr. Newland (N) using antibiotics to treat muscle injuries has shorter recuperation time than the group of Dr. Alton (A) does which using sugar pills as treatment. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat appealing, but careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.[/size][/color][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=1][color=black][size=10.5pt][/size][/color][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=10.5pt]
[size=1][color=black]In the first place, the arguer assumes that a study of patients having muscle injuries proves that secondary infection may hinder patients' healing after severe muscle strain. In other words, the arguer constructs a premise that secondary injection will certainly occur on patients that have severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to prove his premise or consider if all the patients in the study have been injected secondarily. For these matters, it is entirely possible that all these patients haven't been infected secondarily, and it is the sugar pills that impede recuperation, but not antibiotics that accelerate the recuperation. Without taking these factors into account, the author renders his hypothesis highly suspect.
[/color][/size][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=10.5pt]
[size=1][color=black][/color][/size][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=10.5pt]
[size=1][color=black]In the second place, even if I were to concede thatsecondary infections will surely happen on the patient with severe muscle strain, the study provided by the author cannot convince us. The study shows us that the recuperation time of N group was 40 percent quicker than A group, only because N group took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. However, the author overlooks many other possible explanations for this phenomenon. For example, the patients in group N are much younger than group A, so it might be the body condition that has effected the recuperation. Or perhaps N who specializes in sports medicine is better at treating muscle problem than A who is a general physician. Moreover, the arguer hasn't provided any evidence to demonstrate that sugar pills will not affect patient's treatment. Above scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's conclusion. Thus, if the author wants to establish a general causal relationship between antibiotics and recuperation, other factors that could affect the recuperation should be considered and eliminated.[/color][/size][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=1][color=black][size=10.5pt][/size][/color][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=10.5pt]
[size=1][color=black]In the third place, even if I were to concede that antibiotics are the only factor that accelerates recuperation, the arguer fails to considerate the side effect brought by antibiotics. Perhaps, some patients will be allergic to antibiotics and can not take it during treatment. Without considering these possibilities, the author's recommendation remains unconvincing.[/color][/size][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][align=left][font=Arial][size=1][color=black][size=10.5pt][/size][/color][/size][/font][/align][align=left][color=black]
[size=1][/size][/color][/align][font=Arial][size=10.5pt][align=left]
[size=1][color=black]To sum up, the author’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusion argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.[/color][/size][/align][align=left][size=1][color=#000000][/color][/size] [/align][align=left][size=1][color=#000000] 可以进行批改 稍后加分[/color][/size][/size][/font][/align][/size][/font][/size][/color]
[[i] 本帖最后由 mike87227 于 2009-2-7 16:52 编辑 [/i]]
原378楼 dingwenli007大作
65.The following appeared in a memo from the president of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States."For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, the five best-selling cheeses at our newest store were all domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a recent survey by Cheeses of the World magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its subscribers. Since our company can reduce expenses by limiting inventory, the best way to improve profits in all of our stores is to discontinue stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses."
很多年来我们的所有连锁店都储备了很多种类的国产奶酪和进口奶酪。然而去年，我们的最新店里五种销量最高的奶酪都是威斯康星出产的cheddar奶酪。而且，最近一次由Cheese of the World杂志所举行的调查显示，其订阅者对于国产奶酪的倾向性越来越高。由于我们公司可以通过限制库存来减少开支，在我们所有连锁店增加盈利的最好方式就是停止贮备很多进口奶酪而主要集中于国产奶酪。
(正文)
The author recommends that the best way to improve profits in all of stores is to discontinued stocking many of varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses .In order to support such suggestion, the arguer cites certain reasons. However , such reasons suffer several problems ,which can not convince me.
To begin with ,the author cites that last year, the five best-selling cheeses at newest store were all domestic products from Wisconsin(W).And thus he or she assumes that such preference would represent the overall situation of other chain of cheese stores throughout the United States. So, in order to promote profits ,the stores should focus on domestic cheeses. Nevertheless ,such assumption is problematic. In fact, the five best selling cheese at newest stores last years can neither represent the overall stores throughout the United States nor represent the situation of coming year of the newest stores. It is entirely possible that apart from the newest stores, other stores sell imported cheese better than domestic goods .Also, possibly, last year was unusual , in which only five domestic cheeses were best-selling.
In addition, the arguer cites a recent survey of the world magazine to support his or her recommendation. While such investigation is unwarranted unless the author tells me more information about how the survey was conducted .It is possible that the survey suffers certain scientific flaws such as the sample is not big enough to indicate the overall preferences of consumers .Although, the survey shows that there is a increasing demand for domestic cheeses ,the absolute demand of imported cheese is overwhelming. So the results of the survey could hardly to support his or suggestion .
Further more ,the author falsely considers that to discontinue stocking the import cheeses would naturally limit inventory and thus reduce expenses .However , without clear evidence , it is unwise to assume that imported cheeses rather than domestic products would accumulate inventory .It is possible that although the imported cheeses are not the best selling but are well selling and much more profitable due to their higher price and lower cost. Accordingly ,the suggestion of focusing on the domestic cheese is unsound .
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands . In order to strengthen it, the author must offer more information to support that the situation of the newest stores in the last year can represent that of all the stores all over the country and in the near future .Again, the author must provide clear evidence to substantiate the reliability of the mentioned survey and that the decrease of imported cheeses would reduce inventory. Otherwise , the argument is invalidated for me.
改3#
dingweiyuan的A51[size=3][color=black][font=Helvetica]51 The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."===[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][/font][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][font=Arial]In this argument, the arguer advocates that the healing of severe muscle strain will be slowed down by secondary infections and all patients suffering from muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics to treat their illness. To bolster this argument, the arguer cites the result of a recent study in which the group of Dr. Newland (N) using antibiotics to treat muscle injuries has shorter recuperation time than the group of Dr. Alton (A) does which using sugar pills as treatment. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat appealing, but careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][/font][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][font=Arial]In the first place, the arguer assumes that a study of patients having muscle injuries proves that secondary infection may hinder patients' healing after severe muscle strain. In other words, the arguer constructs a premise that secondary injection will certainly occur on patients that have severe muscle strain. Nevertheless, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to prove his premise or consider if all the patients in the study have been injected secondarily. {For these matters, it is entirely possible that all these patients haven't been infected secondarily, [/font][/color][u][color=red][font=Arial]and it is the sugar pills that impede recuperation[/font][/color][/u][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]（我认为题中提到[/font][/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial]sugar pill [/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]是用来作为参照组的，不知可否用来质疑）[/font][/font][/color][color=black][font=Arial], but not antibiotics that accelerate the recuperation. }Without taking these factors into account, the author renders[/font][/color][u][color=red][font=Arial]his[/font][/color][/u][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]（[/font][/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial]his/her[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]）[/font][/font][/color][color=black][font=Arial] hypothesis highly suspect. [/font][/color][/size]
[size=3][font=宋体][color=red][font=Arial]这个方面我是从质疑结论中偷换了二次感染和一般受伤的概念角度说的，而不是从调查中是否感染角度说的。[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][/font][/color][/font][/size]
[size=3][color=black][font=Arial]In the second place, even if I were to concede that secondary infections will surely happen on the patient with severe muscle strain, the study provided by the author cannot convince us. The study shows us that the recuperation time of N group was 40 percent quicker than A group, only because N group took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. However, the author overlooks many other possible explanations for this phenomenon. For example, the patients in group N are much younger than group A, so it might be the body condition that has effected the recuperation[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]（可以直接说明越年轻越有利于康复）[/font][/font][/color][color=black][font=Arial]. Or perhaps N who specializes in sports medicine is better at treating muscle problem than A who is a general physician. Moreover, the arguer hasn't provided any evidence to demonstrate that [/font][/color][u][color=red][font=Arial]sugar pills[/font][/color][/u][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]（和上一段一样，我感觉质疑[/font][/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial]sugar pill[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]这个问题有点太小了）[/font][/font][/color][color=black][font=Arial] will not affect patient's treatment. Above scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's conclusion. Thus, if the author wants to establish a general causal relationship between antibiotics and recuperation, other factors that could affect the recuperation should be considered and eliminated.[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][/font][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][font=Arial]In the third place,[/font][/color][u][color=red][font=Arial]even if I were to concede that [/font][/color][/u][color=red][font=Arial][font=宋体]（与上段句式一样，可以换一下吧）[/font][/font][/color][color=black][font=Arial]antibiotics are the only factor that accelerates recuperation, the arguer fails to considerate the side effect brought by antibiotics. Perhaps, some patients will be allergic to antibiotics and can not take it during treatment. Without considering these possibilities, the author's recommendation remains unconvincing.[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][/font][/color][/size]
[size=3][color=black][font=Arial]To sum up, the author’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusion argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.[/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial][/font][/color][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[font=宋体][size=12pt]感觉作者的水平远在我之上，论证的思路和我基本一样，我能改出的错误都有些吹毛求疵，[/size][/font][size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]hehe![/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[[i] 本帖最后由 Nyra 于 2009-2-7 17:42 编辑 [/i]]
我的A188
TOPIC: ARGUMENT188 - A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids-a painkiller-to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.In this article, the author concludes two conclusions: (1) doctors should prescribe kappa opioids (KO) as pain medication to women and other medication to men, and (2) all medications' effects should be reevaluate for the difference between men and women. To support these conclusions, the author cites a survey which indicates that KO is more effective on women than men. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
In the first place, no sufficient conclusion can be drawn from the survey which indicates that KO is more effective on women for the various problems it lies on. First, the number of the sample-28 men and 20 women-is obviously too small to support any conclusion. Second, the researchers merely research KO's effect on teeth extract surgeon, as a result it is entirely possible that KO is more effective on men than women in some other kind of surgeons to the contrary. Moreover, this survey is based on the feeling of patients, so there are many other factors can influence the result, such as the age of patients, or the state of illness. However the author fails to take any of these factors into account. Absence of evidences that proves the survey grounded on these aspects, I am not convinced to believe the conclusion that KO is more effective on women than on men.
In the second place, granted that the result of the research is supportive, it is not necessary to suggest that KO should be prescribed for women and other pain killers to men. Though it is not always happens, it is still possible that there are many other better medications for women, while there is no other medication can be more effective than KO for men, though KO is still more effective on women. Furthermore, it is also possible that some women allergy to KO, as a consequence it is even quite dangerous to prescribe KO to these women.
In the third place, even if the author proves the first conclusion, the author also unfairly suggests that all medications should be reevaluated the effects on men versus. On the one hand, the author overemphasis the necessity of reevaluate all medication, perhaps not all kinds of medications’ effectiveness are different between men and women; on the other hand, the author failing to consider the feasibility of this conclusion, common sense tells us that there are so many kinds of medications that it is almost impossible to reevaluate all medications.
In sum, as it stands the recommendation is not well supported. To better support the conclusion, the author should provide more evidences to prove the survey the author cites is grounded and better analysis on the argument to draw the two conclusions. 占位改4# 160As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating—and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.
In this argument, the author unreasonablly draws a conclusion that newly found compounds can help students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating learn better. A study of PEP is provided to support this argument. However the article is fabricated unconvincing.
First, the foundamental basis of this study is that PEP influence people when they are aged. However, the author's conclusion aimed at students at school rather than aged persons. Without a reliable evident to explain this flaw, hardly can the author convinces me to believe that reflections of PEP relate to this argument, lacking of which, not possible can I accede the recommandation of these compounds. Further more, the author offers no evidence to clearly discribe that how the compounds prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, or they may limit PEP at extended boards rather than neuropeptide, which can even possiblly influence physical fit of the users. Without relative evidence, I just disagree more with the author.
Secondly, they use some rats to test the compounds effects, having no clear or approximate number of the rats reported. Based on the principles of science, never can I agree with a study of no statistics. If they test few rats only, it is equally possible that most rats cannot benefit from the compounds. Also, human clinics should take place to reinforce author's point. Additionally, the fact that the compounds restored lost memory in rats means little to ensure that the compounds removed effects of PEP on learning skills and nature of the rats. Accordingly, the study provides little supportion to the argument, because it is at a beginning stages and support the point at a narrow aspect, if it can.
Thirdly, PEP have no effects on individual concentration as the article states. So it is unfair to expect the compounds promote the children's skills to focus on their concentrations. Even if the compounds have such effect to solve the student's poor memory and difficulty in concentrating, they may continue suffering their problems, because they have other difficulties or even they are used to being who they were!
In sum, the author's claim is unreasonable that some compounds should be extended applied to solve problems of students who suffer from poor memory and difficuly in concentrating. To make it convincing, direct evidences to support the conclusion or at least perfect flaws metioned above. 65.The following appeared in a memo from the president of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States.
"For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, the five best-selling cheeses at our newest store were all domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a recent survey by Cheeses of the World magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its subscribers. Since our company can reduce expenses by limiting inventory, the best way to improve profits in all of our stores is to discontinue stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses."
很多年来我们的所有连锁店都储备了很多种类的国产奶酪和进口奶酪。然而去年，我们的最新店里五种销量最高的奶酪都是威斯康星出产的cheddar奶酪。而且，最近一次由Cheese of the World杂志所举行的调查显示，其订阅者对于国产奶酪的倾向性越来越高。由于我们公司可以通过限制库存来减少开支，在我们所有连锁店增加盈利的最好方式就是停止贮备很多进口奶酪而主要集中于国产奶酪。
(正文)
The author recommends that the best way to improve profits in all of stores is to discontinued stocking many of varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses .In order to support such suggestion, the arguer cites certain reasons. However , such reasons suffer several problems ,which can not convince me.
To begin with ,the author cites that last year, the five best-selling cheeses at [color=red]newest store（our newest/ the newest）[/color] were all domestic products from Wisconsin(W).And thus he or she assumes that such preference would represent the overall situation of [color=red]other chain(一个chain)[/color] of cheese stores throughout the United States. So, in order to promote profits ,the stores should focus on domestic cheeses. Nevertheless ,such assumption is problematic. In fact, the five best selling cheese at newest stores last years can neither represent the overall stores throughout the United States nor represent the situation of coming year of the newest stores. It is entirely possible that apart from the newest stores, other stores sell imported cheese better than domestic goods .Also, possibly, last year was unusual , in which only five domestic cheeses were best-selling.[color=blue]段尾缺少分析和小结Lacking relative evidence......[/color]
In addition, the arguer cites a recent survey of [color=red]the world magazine(与原文不符)[/color] to support his or her recommendation. While such investigation is unwarranted unless the author tells me more information about how the survey was conducted .It is possible that the survey suffers certain scientific flaws such as the sample is not big enough to indicate the overall preferences of consumers [color=red].Although, the survey shows that there is a(an) increasing demand for domestic cheeses(cheese不可数) ,the absolute demand of imported cheese is overwhelming.[/color] So the results of the survey could hardly to support his or suggestion .
Further more ,the author falsely considers that to discontinue stocking the import cheeses would naturally limit inventory and thus reduce expenses .However , without clear evidence , it is unwise to assume that imported cheeses rather than domestic products would accumulate inventory .It is possible that although the imported cheeses are not the best selling but are well selling and much more profitable due to their higher price and lower cost. Accordingly ,the suggestion of focusing on the domestic cheese is [color=red]unsound（unsounded）[/color] .
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands . In order to strengthen it, the author must offer more information to support that the situation of the newest stores in the last year can represent that of all the stores all over the country and in the near future .Again, the author must provide clear evidence to substantiate the reliability of the mentioned survey and that the decrease of imported cheeses would reduce inventory. Otherwise , the argument is invalidated for me.
[color=blue][/color]
[color=#0000ff]整体感觉错误找的全面，每段字数不多，比如第二段少内容[/color]
加贴，改A118
A188TOPIC: ARGUMENT188 - A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa opioids-a painkiller-to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.In this article, the author concludes two conclusions: (1) doctors should prescribe kappa opioids (KO) as pain medication to women and other medication to men, and (2) all medications' effects should be [color=red]reevaluate（被动） [/color]for the difference between men and women. To support these conclusions, the author cites a survey which indicates that KO is more effective on women than men. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
In the first place, no sufficient conclusion can be drawn from the survey which indicates that KO is more effective on women for the various problems it lies on. First, the number of the sample-28 men and 20 women-is obviously too small to support any conclusion. Second, the researchers merely research KO's effect on teeth extract surgeon, as a result it is entirely possible that KO is more effective on men than women in some other kind of surgeons to the contrary. Moreover, this survey is based on the feeling of patients, so there are many other factors can influence the result, such as the age of patients, or the state of illness. However the author fails to take any of these factors into account. Absence of evidences that proves the survey grounded on these aspects, I am not convinced to believe the conclusion that KO is more effective on women than on men.
In the second place, granted that the result of the research is supportive, it is not necessary to suggest that KO should be prescribed for women and other pain killers to men. Though it is not always happens, it is still possible that there are many other better medications for women, while there is no other medication can be more effective than KO for men, though KO is still more effective on women. Furthermore, it is also possible that some women allergy to KO, as a consequence it is even quite dangerous to prescribe KO to these women.
In the third place, even if the author proves the first conclusion, the author also unfairly suggests that all medications should be reevaluated the effects on men versus. On the one hand, the author overemphasis the necessity of reevaluate all medication, perhaps not all kinds of medications’ effectiveness are different between men and women; on the other hand, the author failing to consider the feasibility of this conclusion, common sense tells us that there are so many kinds of medications that it is almost impossible to reevaluate all medications.
In sum, as it stands the recommendation is not well supported. To better support the conclusion, the author should provide more evidences to prove the survey the author cites is grounded and better analysis on the argument to draw the two conclusions.
[color=blue]::56 牛人...文章里很难找错误[/color] 前面的都改过，请楼下改6#，8#，其中6#的因鄙人能力有限::p5 ，作者太牛::56 ，几乎没有什么改动，希望大家帮忙……
占位改8楼
占位[size=16pt][font=Times New Roman]In this argument, the author [color=red]unreasonably[/color] draws a conclusion that newly found compounds can help students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating [color=red]on [/color]learn[color=red]ing[/color] better. A study of PEP is provided to support this argument. However the article is fabricated unconvincing.First, the [color=red]fundamental[/color]
basis of this study is that PEP influence people when they are aged. However, the author's conclusion aimed at students at school rather than aged [color=red]people[/color]. Without a reliable [color=red]evidence[/color] to explain this flaw, hardly can the author convinces me (to believe[/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]语义重复了[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman]) that reflections of PEP relate to this argument, lacking of which, not possible can I accede [color=red]their recommendation[/color] of these compounds. Further more, the author offers no evidence to clearly [color=red]describe[/color] that how the compounds prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, or they may limit PEP at extended boards[/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]（[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman]board[/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]这儿是什意思？）[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] rather than neuropeptide, which can even[color=red] possibly[/color] influence physical [color=red]fitness[/color] of the users. Without relative evidence, I just disagree more [/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]（[color=red]这儿是不是因该是[/color][/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman]just can not disagree more[/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]）[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman]with the author.
Secondly, they use some rats to test the [color=red]compounds’[/color] [color=red]effect[/color], having no([/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]用[/size][/font][font=Times New Roman][size=16pt]without[/size][size=16pt]) clear or approximate number of the rats reported. Based on the principles of science, never can I agree with a study of no statistics. If they test few rats only, it is equally possible that most[color=red] other [/color]rats cannot benefit from the compounds. Also, human clinics should take place to reinforce author's [color=red]conclusion[/color]. Additionally, the fact that the compounds restored lost memory in rats means little to ensure that the compounds removed effect of PEP on learning skills and nature of the rats.[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=16pt]（这句不明白是啥意思……）[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] Accordingly, the study provides little [color=red]support [/color]to the argument, because it is at a beginning stages and support the point at a narrow aspect, if it can.
Thirdly, PEP have no effect on individual concentration as the article states. So it is unfair to expect the compounds promote the children's skills to focus on their [color=red]concentration[/color][/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]（[color=red]这个词好像不能这么用[/color]）[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman]. Even if the compounds have such effect to solve the student's poor memory and difficulty in concentrating, [/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]（[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman]solve[/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]用的不对[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=16pt]）[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][font=Times New Roman]they may continue suffering their problems, because they have other difficulties or even they are used to being who they were!
In sum, the author's claim that some compounds should be extended applied to solve problems of students who suffer from poor memory and [color=red]difficulty[/color] in concentrating [color=red]is unreasonable[/color][/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]。[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] To make it convincing, direct evidences to support the conclusion or at least perfect flaws[color=red] mentioned[/color] above.[/font][/size]
[size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[font=宋体][size=16pt]建议作者把写错的词改好再发上来[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[font=宋体][size=16pt]有些句子虽然对了但是感觉不太地道[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]而且重复用词过多[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]建议看看语法[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]增加词汇量[/size][/font][size=16pt][/size]
[font=宋体][size=16pt]本人水平有限[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]只能改成这样了[/size][/font][size=16pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size][font=宋体][size=16pt]再给别的高手改改[/size][/font][size=16pt][/size]
改8楼
[[i] 本帖最后由 47snake47 于 2009-2-7 21:24 编辑 [/i]]
argument56
题目：ARGUMENT56 - Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value.At first glance, the argument's prediction that life-size sculptures will decease in value while the miniatures will increase in value appears to be somewhat prudent, however, close scrutiny of each of the evidence reveals none of them lend convincing support to this conclusion. There are several logical flaws in the arguments.
First and foremost ,the assumption that the ancient life-size sculptures was made by using molds of actual bodies on which the prediction depends is unwarranted. To support this assumption, the author cites (1)molds of human heads and hands were found on Kali,(2)few sculpting tools have been found,(3)the miniature were entirely different style. I find that the facts all amount to scant evidence. They have found the molds of human heads and hands does not necessarily mean that the ancient sculptors use these molds to make the life-size sculpture. The author overlook the factor that they have only found human heads and hands molds, it means they probably only use these two kind of body molds and the other parts of the body might be sculpted by technique. Further more , the miniatures are abstract and different in style might only because they were produced by different artist who prefer the abstract style. Or perhaps, the small sculptures were made during other time periods when the fashion of style of sculpture had already changed. Finally, we can not draw the conclusion that the ancient people did not use sculpting tools from the evidence that archeologist haven't found many sculpting tools. It's strongly possible that the researchers will find more tools during the further research, or the ancient people made the sculpture just by using natural tools such as sharp rocks. Any of the foregoing scenarios ,if true, will entirely undermine the argument.
Even if I were to concede the assumption, the further conclusion that the life-size sculpture will decrease in value while the miniature will increase in value is still untenable. If the life-size stature is actually made by using human molds, it is possible that they will increase in value instead .Commonsense and experience tell us ,the rarer the antiques are the more valuable they are. The human-molded statuaries might merely been found, thus these life-size sculpture may have great chance to becoming more valuable. Further more, the author failed to rule out the reasons why the miniature will increase in value. To better assess the conclusion the author should cites more persuasive evidence that the collectors prefer the miniatures rather than human-molded life-size sculpture.
To sum up ,the argument is entirely unpersuasive. To better substantiate it the author should point out credible evidence to ensure that the statuaries were produced buy using human molds and cites convincing facts to support that the collectors like miniatures better since then. However ,the speaker failed to quote such evidence and render the prediction to untenable.
[[i] 本帖最后由 47snake47 于 2009-2-7 20:53 编辑 [/i]]
改了13#
ARGUMENT56 - Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value.At first glance, the argument's prediction that life-size sculptures will decease in value while the miniatures will increase in value appears to be somewhat prudent, however, close scrutiny of each of the evidence reveals none of them lend convincing support to this conclusion. There are several logical flaws in the arguments. [color=red]（我认为开头可以把题目的内容再展开一点写，不用精简得太干净，把要攻击的逻辑错误的内容也放进去，比如：the assertion is based on the evidence that【一个你下文会攻击的逻辑错误】，这样就和主题、结尾呼应了~）[/color]
First and foremost ,the assumption that the ancient life-size sculptures was made by using molds of actual bodies on which the prediction depends is unwarranted. To support this assumption, the author cites [color=blue](1)[/color]molds of human heads and hands were found on Kali[color=blue],(2)[/color]few sculpting tools have been found[color=blue],(3)[/color]the miniature were entirely different style. I find that the facts all amount to scant evidence. They have found the molds of human heads and hands does not necessarily mean that the ancient sculptors use these molds to make the life-size sculpture. The author overlook the factor that they have only found human heads and hands molds, it means they probably only use these two kind of body molds and the other parts of the body might be sculpted by technique. Further more , the miniatures are abstract and different in style might only because they were produced by different artist who prefer the abstract style. Or perhaps, the small sculptures were made during other time periods when the fashion of style of sculpture had already changed. Finally, we can not draw the conclusion that the ancient people did not use sculpting tools from the evidence that archeologist haven't found many sculpting tools. It's strongly possible that the researchers will find more tools during the further research, or the ancient people made the sculpture just by using natural tools such as sharp rocks. Any of the foregoing scenarios ,if true, will entirely undermine the argument. [color=red]（作者把1，2,3，三个点写在一段，我觉得有些过于拥挤。最好把三段分开来写，因为三个点都足矣成为可攻击的逻辑错误。建议分成三段，并每段开头指出逻辑错误，这样的好处有：1,让考官明了的看出你找出的逻辑错误数量，每段开头的总起句让考官很清晰地判断你的逻辑攻击是否正确到位。2，避免的结构上的不平衡。主题才两段，开头结尾也两端，让人感觉整体结构失衡，主题更充实一点，把逻辑错误以段落单位一次攻击会好很多~）[/color]
Even if I were to concede the assumption, the further conclusion that the life-size sculpture will decrease in value while the miniature will increase in value is still untenable. If the life-size stature is actually made by using human molds, it is possible that they will increase in value instead .Commonsense and experience tell us ,the rarer the antiques are the more valuable they are. The human-molded statuaries might merely been found, thus these life-size sculpture may have great chance to becoming more valuable. Further more, the author failed to rule out the reasons why the miniature will increase in value. To better assess the conclusion the author should cites more persuasive evidence that the collectors prefer the miniatures rather than human-molded life-size sculpture.
To sum up ,the argument is entirely unpersuasive. To better substantiate it the author should point out credible evidence to ensure that the statuaries were produced buy using human molds and cites convincing facts to support that the collectors like miniatures better since then. However ,the speaker failed to quote such evidence and render the prediction to untenable.
[color=red]小结：[/color]
[color=#ff0000]1. 文章思路清晰，语言流畅清新，让人很舒服[/color]
[color=#ff0000]2. 主要问题是结构安排不够合理~还有标点后记得空格，其他没有什么问题：》[/color]
[[i] 本帖最后由 dingweiyuan 于 2009-2-8 11:51 编辑 [/i]]
argument 45~待拍~
这是我写的a45~不知道写得怎么样希望高手给予指点~~在写的过程中我遇到以下几个问题：1. 在文章中说“他的（作者）的观点”一定要用“his/her opinion"么？统统用his可以么？
2. 第几段要开头空格第几段不用？这些有严格限制么？最后提交的时候，段与段之间是否可以有空行？
3. 在下文中我攻击两个同类的逻辑错误：Concurrence 和 Causal Oversimplication,它们都属于因果逻辑错误的类型，这样好么？
4. 有时候上下文会提到同一个例子：有可能有一段为主要例子会详细讲，另一段则是一句话带过。这样可以么？如5#，nyra同学帮我改的，在全文我用了两次sugar pills的例子
5. 关于攻击逻辑顺序，怎样比较好？
希望有朋友能解答我的问题，或大家来讨论~~下面是文章：
TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."
In this argument, the author concludes that being unable to follow age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea results in the decline in population of arctic deer. In order to bolster his/her argument, the author not only provides the description of arctic deer's living condition, but also cites the local hunters' report that shows the decline in deer populations. In addition, the author points out the coincidence of the report and the recent global warming. At the first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat appealing, but a close scrutiny would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
In the first place, the arguer presents the local hunter's report to demonstrate that the population of deers are declining, but this report is still unconvincing. As the common sense informs us, hunters are much different from experts or scientists in making report, because they don't have advanced equipments and method to build their conclusion. It is absolutely possible that the reports are made only based on the hunter's daily experiences, but not scientific methods and thoughts. Thus, we won't accept author's assumption until the author can prove that the reports are got from a authoritative resource.
In the second place, even though I were to concede that the report are authoritative, the author still commits the fallacy of "Concurrence" in assuming that being unable to across the frozen sea is responsible the death of arctic deer. The only evidence offered to support the assumption is the reports revealing the decline in deer population with global warming. However, such a mere chronology correlation does not necessarily to prove a causal relationship between them. And many other legitimate reasons can explain it better. It is entirely possible that it is the excessive hunting of deer that lead to the population decline. Without ruling out other alternative factors, no causal relationship can be established.
In the third place, the evidences provided by the author indicate us that global warming will certainly cause the sea ice in deer's habitat to melt, and then force the deer unable to across the sea to seek food, and then lead to the death of deer. But it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the global warming hasn't affected the deer's habitat radically, so the deer can still follow their age-old migration patterns. Moreover, even though they can not moving over the ice, the deers will change their mode of life to prevent from dying. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's assertion.
The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer still commits the fallacy of "causal oversimplication", since no evidence has been provided to warrant the assumption that being unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea is all that accounted for the death of arctic deers. Though being unable to change the migration patterns might be an important contributing factor to the phenomenon, it is hardly the only determine one. For example, perhaps the destruction of the nature environment make the deers have no suitable place to live. Or perhaps the excessive hunting leads to the decreased population.
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
[[i] 本帖最后由 dingweiyuan 于 2009-2-8 11:54 编辑 [/i]]
改15#
[size=12pt][font=Tahoma]TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal."Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."[/font]
[/size][font=Dotum][size=12pt]In this argument, the author concludes that [u][color=red]being unable to follow age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea results in the decline in population of arctic deer[/color][/u][/size][/font][u][font=宋体][size=12pt]（这句话语法很别扭）[/size][/font][/u][font=Dotum][size=12pt].[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] In order to bolster his/her argument, the author not only provides the description of arctic deer's living condition, but also cites the local hunters' report that shows the decline in deer populations. In addition, the author points out [u][color=red]the coincidence of the report and the recent global warming[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（此句也别扭）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]. At the first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat appealing, but a close scrutiny would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]108[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]字，建议首段不要太长，花时间太多，后文可能论证不充分了）[/size][/font]
[font=Dotum][size=12pt]
In the first place, the arguer presents the local hunter's report to demonstrate that the population of [u][color=red]deers[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]deer[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]的复数还是[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]deer[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] [u]are[/u][/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt](is)[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] declining, but this report is still unconvincing. As the common sense informs us, hunters are [u][color=red]much[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]([/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]删掉？[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt])[/size][/font]
[font=Dotum][size=12pt]different from experts or scientists [u][color=red]in making report[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（此句很别扭）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt], because they don't have advanced equipments and method to build their conclusion. It is absolutely possible that the reports are made only based on the hunter's daily experiences, but not scientific methods and[color=red] [u]thoughts[/u][/color][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（？不理解）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]. Thus, we won't accept author's assumption until the author can prove that the reports are got from [u][color=red]a[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]an[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] authoritative resource.
In the second place, even though I were to concede that the report are authoritative, the author still commits the fallacy of "Concurrence" in assuming that being unable to across the frozen sea is responsible [/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（加[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]for[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]the [u][color=red]death[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]([/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]数量减少不等于死了吧，还可以是不繁殖了[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt])[/size][/font]
[font=Dotum][size=12pt]of arctic deer. The only evidence offered to support the assumption is the reports revealing the decline in deer population [/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（该加[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]coincide[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]？）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]with global warming. However, such a mere chronology correlation does not necessarily[color=red] [u]to[/u][/color][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（删？）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] prove a causal relationship between them. And many other legitimate reasons can explain it better. It is entirely possible that it is the excessive hunting of deer that lead to the population decline. Without ruling out other alternative factors, no causal relationship can be established.
In the third place, the evidences provided by the author indicate [u][color=red]us[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（删？）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] that global warming will certainly cause the sea ice in deer's habitat to melt, and then [u][color=red]force[/color][/u][/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]（此处用[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]force[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]感觉不恰当）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] the deer unable to across the sea to seek food, and then lead to the [u][color=red]death[/color][/u] of deer. But it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the global warming hasn't affected the deer's habitat radically, so the deer can still follow their age-old migration patterns. Moreover, even though they can not moving over the ice, the deer[u][color=red]s[/color][/u]
will change their mode of life to prevent from dying. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's assertion.
[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]{[/size][/font][u][font=Dotum][size=12pt]The last but not the least important[/size][/font][/u][font=宋体][size=12pt]（有人说此句虽然常用，但是不够正式，尽量不用在[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]G[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]中）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt], even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer still commits the fallacy of "causal oversimplication", since no evidence has been provided to warrant the assumption that being unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea is all that accounted for the[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt] [color=red]death of arctic deer[u]s[/u].[/color][/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]}[/size][/font]
[font=宋体][size=12pt]（这句太长了，可以分句吧）[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]Though being unable to change the migration patterns might be an important contributing factor to the phenomenon, it is hardly the only determine one. For example, perhaps the destruction of the nature environment make the deer[u]s[/u] have no suitable place to live.[u][color=red] Or perhaps the excessive hunting leads to the decreased population.[/color][/u]
[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]个人觉得者一段没有必要单独拿出来写，可以融合在前三段中，尤其最后作者又说了一次[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt]Or perhaps the excessive hunting leads to the decreased population.[/size][/font][font=Dotum][size=12pt][/size][/font]
[font=Dotum][size=12pt]
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.[/size][/font]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]1、[color=red]1、[/color][/font][/size][color=red][font=宋体][size=12pt]作者的语言表达上可以再改进，个人水平有限，只能部分指出别扭的地方，能力不够帮助作者修改。[/size][/font][size=12pt][/size][/color]
[color=red][size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]2、2、[/font][/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]作者有些话有点像模板似的“废话”，结果论证就变得不充分了。[/size][/font][/color]
[color=red]
[size=12pt][/size][/color]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman][color=red] [/color][/font][/size]
[color=red][font=宋体][size=12pt]关于问题：[/size][/font][size=12pt][/size][/color]
[color=red][font=宋体][size=12pt]1. 1、[/size][/font][font=宋体][size=12pt]在文章中说“他的（作者）的观点”一定要用“his/her opinion"么？统统用his可以么？[/size][/font][/color]
[font=宋体][size=12pt][color=red]我觉得不好，我也有疑问，期待大家的解答[/color]
[color=red]2. [/color][color=red]第几段要开头空格第几段不用？这些有严格限制么？最后提交的时候，段与段之间是否可以有空行？[/color][/size][/font]
[font=宋体][size=12pt][color=red]段首不空格，段间空一行[/color]
[color=red]3. [/color][color=red]在下文中我攻击两个同类的逻辑错误：Concurrence 和 Causal Oversimplication,它们都属于因果逻辑错误的类型，这样好么？[/color][/size][/font]
[font=宋体][size=12pt][color=red]个人意见是同一个位置的错误不要分成两个错误类型攻击。[/color]
[color=red]4. [/color][color=red]有时候上下文会提到同一个例子：有可能有一段为主要例子会详细讲，另一段则是一句话带过。这样可以么？[/color][/size][/font]
[font=宋体][size=12pt][color=red]我没有在文章中把一个例子说两次的时候，所以我也不知道，但是我觉得最好不要反复说一个例子吧？[/color]
[color=red]5. [/color][color=red]关于攻击逻辑顺序，怎样比较好？[/color]
[color=red] [/color][color=red]这个前几天有一个帖子讨论[/color][url=http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-1145363-1-4.html][color=red]http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-1145363-1-4.html[/color][/url][/size][/font]
[color=red][/color]
[[i] 本帖最后由 Nyra 于 2009-2-8 12:13 编辑 [/i]]
A 161
[font=Arial][size=2]TOPIC: ARGUMENT161 - In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]In this article, the author concludes that the respondents in the study which indicate the Leeville (L) citizens prefer literary classics rather than mystery novel as reading material had misrepresented their reading habits. To support the conclusion the author cites a follow-up study which indicates an opposite result. Careful scrutiny of argument reveals several unproven assumptions, which render it unconvincing.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]
In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that the sample in two surveys can represent the whole pool of residents in L. First, as the author mentioned in the article, the first survey was conducted by the University of L. Without providing evidence about what group of people are the respondents it is entirely possible that the samples in the first survey are the students of the university, as we all know university students might have higher education level so they might prefer literary classics. Second, the number of the samples in two surveys are not provided, thus perhaps it is too small to draw any firm conclusion. In the absent of evidences in these respects, I am not convinced to believe that the first group of respondents had misrepresented their reading habits.
In the second place, granted that the samples are representative, the author also fails to substantiate the assumption that the type of book checked out of public libraries can represent the actual reading habits of L's residents, since there are many other ways to get reading materials, such as bookstores, private libraries, borrowed from friends. Because the literary classics are more profound than mystery novels, so readers will read classics a few more times while only need to read mystery novel once. It is entirely possible that people prefer to buy literary classics from bookstores and borrow mystery novel from libraries. If so, the author fails to demonstrate the assumption that the frequency of book checked out of the libraries can represent readers' reading habits.
In the third place, even if the frequency mentioned above can represent citizens' reading habits, there is still no evidence to prove this trend will last. Because there are many other factors that can cause mystery novels become popular for a short time. For example, L is holding a mystery novel exhibition, so the citizens prefer to read them temporarily. However, the author fails to prove that this is a long-time trend, let alone represents citizen's reading habits.
To sum up, the author's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the conclusion.To better support the conclusion, the author should provide better evidence and analysis on the argument to conclude the conclusion.
[/size][/font] 改17#
[size=3]改17#[/size]
[font=Arial][size=3]In this article, the author concludes that the respondents in the study which indicate the Leeville (L) citizens prefer literary classics rather than mystery novel as reading material had misrepresented their reading habits. To support the conclusion the author cites a follow-up study which indicates an opposite result. Careful scrutiny of argument reveals several unproven assumptions, which render it unconvincing.
[/size][/font][font=Arial][size=3]In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that the sample in two surveys can represent the whole pool of residents in L. First, as the author mentioned in the article, the first survey was conducted by the University of L. Without providing evidence about what group of people are the respondents it is entirely possible that the samples in the first survey are the students of the university, as we all know university students might have higher education level so they might prefer literary classics. Second, the number of the samples in two surveys are not provided, thus perhaps it is too small to draw any firm conclusion. In the absent of evidences in these respects, I am not [color=red]convinced to believe[/color] [color=red]（有些重复）[/color]that the first group of respondents had misrepresented their reading habits.
In the second place, granted that the samples are representative, the author also fails to substantiate the assumption that the type of book checked out of public libraries can represent the actual reading habits of L's residents, since there are many other ways to get reading materials, such as bookstores, private libraries, borrowed from friends. Because the literary classics are more profound than mystery novels, so readers will read classics a few more times while only need to read mystery novel once. It is entirely possible that people prefer to buy literary classics from bookstores and borrow mystery novel from libraries. If so, the author fails to demonstrate the assumption that the frequency of book checked out of the libraries can represent readers' reading habits.
In the third place, even if the frequency mentioned above can represent citizens' reading habits, there is still no evidence to prove this trend will last. Because there are many other factors that can cause mystery novels become popular for a short time. For example, L is holding a mystery novel exhibition, so the citizens prefer to read them temporarily. However, the author fails to prove that this is a long-time trend, let alone represents citizen's reading habits.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=3][color=red]这段攻击调查时间太短是不是比较牵强，而且感觉这段内容就写得比较少。可以攻击两次调查时间不一致，犯了时间外推的错误[/color]
To sum up, the author's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting the conclusion.To better support the conclusion, the author should provide better evidence and analysis on the argument to conclude the conclusion.[/size][/font]
[color=red][font=Arial][size=3]感觉结尾段比较短，具体说一下哪些方面的better evidence and analysis 应该会更好一些[/size][/font]
水平有限，只能改这么一些[/color]
[[i] 本帖最后由 forst 于 2009-2-9 01:43 编辑 [/i]] TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
In this argument, the author concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study of two groups of patient: the first group who took antibiotics recuperated earlier; the other group who took sugar pills instead of antibiotics did not recuperate earlier. In addition, the author notes that secondary infections prevent some patients from healing quickly. However, this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.
To begin with, this study appears to suffer from statistical problems, which make the study's result unreliable. First, the number of the patients is not mentioned thus perhaps it is too small to draw any firm conclusion. Second, we are not informed anything about these two groups of patient, who might be different from several factors, such as gene, blood group and the condition of muscle strain. These factors would result in different recuperation time. Third, these two groups of patients were treated by different doctors, different from where they specialize. Common sense tells us that a doctor who specializes in sports medicine will treat the patients in shorter time than a general physician. In short, unless sufficient number and randomicity of specimens are studied and the condition of treatment between these two group is similar, the study is unconvincing.
Even if the study's result is acceptable, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between taking antibiotics and shorter recuperation time. Involved in the argument, the second groups of patients, who took sugar pill instead of antibiotics, needed more the recuperation time than the other group, but the author doesn't list the use of sugar pill, which might be harmful to the treatment. What is more, this conclusion is based on the doubtful assumption that secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly. With this unproved assumption, antibiotic cannot be contributed to decreasing recuperation time.
Finally even though antibiotic is helpful to decrease recuperation time, it is unreasonable to advice all patient diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics. Everything has both positive and negative effect, which cannot be ignored. Antibiotics may help the treatment, while they may harm the health of patient too. Consequently, each patient should be well examined before taking antibiotics, rather than advising every patient to take them.
To sum up, the author fails to maintain the conclusion that all patient diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. To make it more convincing, the author should give more information in three respects: (1) a scientific sampling in the study; (2) the reality of secondary infections after severe muscle strain; (3) which type of patients is unavailable for antibiotics.
改#19
.TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter."Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
In this argument, the author concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study of two groups of patient: the first group who took antibiotics recuperated earlier; the other group who took sugar pills instead of antibiotics did not recuperate earlier. In addition, the author notes that secondary infections prevent some patients from healing quickly. However, this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.
To begin with, this study appears to suffer from statistical problems, which make the study's result unreliable.[color=red] First, the number of the patients is not mentioned thus perhaps it is too small to draw any firm conclusion. Second, we are not informed anything about these two groups of patient, who might be different from several factors, such as gene, blood group and the condition of muscle strain.[/color][color=red](可以归结为一点,不具有代表性 否则有点显罗嗦)[/color] These factors would result in different recuperation time. Third, these two groups of patients were treated by different doctors, different ([color=red]可以用[/color][color=red]distinguished) [/color]from where they specialize. Common sense tells us that a doctor who specializes in sports medicine will treat the patients in shorter time than a general physician. In short, unless sufficient number and randomicity of specimens are studied and the condition of treatment between these two group is similar, the study is unconvincing.
Even if the study's result is acceptable, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between taking antibiotics and shorter recuperation time. Involved in the argument, the second groups of patients, who took sugar pill instead of antibiotics, needed more the recuperation time than the other group, but the author doesn't list the use of sugar pill, which might be harmful to the treatment. [color=red]我觉得这里的论证过于简单,本来是想说明他因的错误 但是只说了一点,可以再谈谈可能他们本来人对药物反映不一啊 或者是医生的方法不同导致的不同结果 这样可以和上面的survey 提到的对应[/color]What is more, this conclusion is based on the doubtful assumption that secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly. With this unproved assumption, antibiotic cannot be contributed to decreasing recuperation time.
Finally even though antibiotic is helpful to decrease recuperation time, it is unreasonable to advice all patient diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics. Everything has both positive and negative effect, which cannot be ignored. Antibiotics may help the treatment, while they may harm the health of patient too. Consequently, each patient should be well examined before taking antibiotics, rather than advising every patient to take them.
To sum up, the author fails to maintain the conclusion that all patient diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. To make it more convincing, the author should give more information in three respects: (1) a scientific sampling in the study; (2) the reality of secondary infections after severe muscle strain; (3) which type of patients is unavailable for antibiotics.
[color=red]总提感觉 不错:[/color]
[color=#ff0000]先攻击这个结论的基础(study)[/color]
[color=#ff0000]然后求其次,看study中的逻辑错误[/color]
[color=#ff0000]最后是攻击结论的合理性[/color]
[color=#ff0000]语法也不错[/color]
我的 求拍
[font=Times New Roman]TOPIC: ARGUMENT94 - The following appeared in a memo from the president of Bower Builders, a company that constructs new homes.[/font][font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]"A nationwide survey reveals that the two most desired home features are a bathroom with a whirlpool tub and a large kitchen. Homes in a nearby development built by our competitor, Domus Construction, have whirlpool tubs and have sold much faster and at significantly higher prices than the average. To increase our sales and profits, we should include whirlpool tubs and larger kitchens as standard features in all our new homes. Since our recent buyers have voiced no complaints about small yards, we can also increase profits by decreasing the size of our yards."[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]WORDS: 478
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/2/8 [/font][font=宋体]下午[/font][font=Times New Roman] 10:10:34[/font]
In this memo the speaker states that their company should include whirlpool tubs and larger kitchens in new homes and decrease the size of their yards in order to raise their profits. The first conclusion is mainly based on the survey of the nationwide, yet it is well-presented, but not well-supported. The speaker is unfairly to mask some other possibilities and makes some logical flaws.
First of all, we have to doubt the validation of the survey, because the main assumption that the buyer prefer the home with the whirlpool tub and a large kitchen based on it. However, the survey is a nationwide survey. The company probably makes the business in one place, and the speaker doubly assumes that the survey can be used specifically to the local buyers. It is not the case. The survey reflects the average preferences. How about the local buyers? Perhaps the homes are located in the seaside. Most buyers don't attention to the bathroom, because they could have the sea bath, or perhaps they are likely to have meal outsides, so however large the kitchen is is not important.
Next, even assuming the nationwide survey can shows the local preference, the memo above is weakened by the fact that the speaker results the better sales on the homes in the such action as the speakers says. We could not receive any conclusion because the speaker might overlook other possibilities. Fast selling and higher prices may be due to any other situation. For example, the company made a better advertisement so the company is well-known in the local site. Also maybe the homes made by the company is better in quality so that it has a higher reputation, obviously buyer would afford the higher price for better quality. After all, without the evidence such measure is the very reason to the better selling, the speaker could not made such conclusion.
Finally, the speakers fails to rule out that the to raise the profit, they can also decrease the size of their yards for the reason that no complaints about small yards. First, we may say no complaints doesn't equates to the fact that buyers don't care about the yards. Perhaps most of the buyers may consider it is a regulation that the home should have a large yard. Moreover, raising profits is a complicated matter, although making such measure can raise the selling price, but the cost may be higher and the salary of the workers would increase.
In sum, the speaker’s conclusion to raise the profits by using the new methods above is easily arguable. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker should have to demonstrate that the survey can be also used in the local sites and these methods are truly beneficial to the selling of the Domus Construction. Moreover, the speaker should shows that the buyers don't care the yard.
改21#
In this memo the speaker states that their company should include whirlpool tubs and larger kitchens in new homes and decrease the size of their yards in order to raise their profits. The first conclusion is mainly based on the survey of the nationwide, yet it is well-presented, but not well-supported. The speaker is unfairly to mask some other possibilities and makes some logical flaws. [color=#ff0000]首段Summary是不是可以做的更仔细些，感觉第一段表明态度而不摆出攻击点为好，个人感觉[/color]First of all, we have to doubt the validation of the survey, because the main assumption that the buyer prefer the home with the whirlpool tub and a large kitchen based on it. However, the survey is a nationwide survey. The company probably makes the business in one place, and the speaker doubly assumes that the survey can be used specifically to the local buyers. It is not the case. The survey reflects the average preferences. [color=red]But [/color]How about the local buyers? Perhaps the homes are located in the seaside.[color=red]and[/color] Most buyers don't [color=#ff0000]do not pay much attention to [/color]attention to the bathroom, because they could have the sea bath[color=red](洗海澡，我不知道英文是否有这个说法哦~~，不过挺幽默）[/color], or perhaps they are likely to have meal outsides, so however large the kitchen is is not important.[color=red]（大哥，kitchen is not for taking a meal...,but for preparing)[/color]
Next, even assuming the nationwide survey can shows the local preference, the memo above is weakened by the fact that the speaker results the better sales on the homes in the such action as the speakers says. We could not receive any conclusion because the speaker might overlook other possibilities. Fast selling and higher prices may be due to any other situation.[color=red]这里是否先用such as说明一些其他理由，后面再展开为好？[/color] For example, the company made a better advertisement so the company is well-known in the local site. Also maybe the homes made by the company is better in quality so that it has a higher reputation, obviously[color=red](Perhaps为好，毕竟都是假设，并不是每个人质量优先哦）[/color] buyer would afford the higher price for better quality. After all, without the evidence such measure is the very reason to the better selling, the speaker could not made such conclusion.
Finally, the speakers fails to rule out that the to raise the profit, they can also decrease the size of their yards for the reason that no complaints about small yards. [color=red]（我不知道这么攻击是否违规，不过也不错，但是如果直接用cost，是否显得更加深入？Small yards apparently means lower cost of construction, right?)[/color]First, we may say no complaints doesn't equates to the fact that buyers don't care about the yards. Perhaps most of the buyers may consider it is a regulation that the home should have a large yard. Moreover, raising profits is a complicated matter, although making such measure can raise the selling price, but the cost may be higher and the salary of the workers would increase.[color=red](过于宏观了，有哪些measure呢？）[/color]
In sum, the speaker’s conclusion to raise the profits by using the new methods above is easily arguable. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker should have to[color=red]（should have to？是否有问题）[/color] demonstrate that the survey can be also used in the local sites and these methods are truly beneficial to the selling of the Domus Construction. Moreover, the speaker should shows that the buyers don't care the yard.[color=red](我觉得yard可能有违规的嫌疑）[/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]
[color=#ff0000]总结：[/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]
[color=#ff0000]1. 总体来说，语言不错，看得出作者做了大量的努力在练习。[/color]
[color=#ff0000]2. 就攻击点而言，感觉不够深入，有些地方说法过于宏观。不过想想自己限时写作的窘迫，这也不难理解，但是希望作者加强细节。[/color]
[color=#ff0000]3. 关于Yard，我想同大伙儿板油商量下，这么写我感觉好象有扩充细节的嫌疑。[/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]
[color=#ff0000][/color]
[[i] 本帖最后由 gujun1225 于 2009-2-9 17:50 编辑 [/i]] TOPIC: ARGUMENT210 - The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.
"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."
WORDS: 403 TIME: 00:22:08 DATE: 2009/2/9 17:25:47
The speaker asserts that with the widen use of the robot that the factory will face less absenteeism, and better output, workers of the factory would prefer to shift to more interesting tasks. While, this argument is not fully reasoned and can not convince me that above consequece can be resulted in.
First, the arguer implies that absenteeism can be reduced because robots never get sick. It is not the case at all, as we clearly know that absenteeism refers to many factors, such as the failure of supplies of the raw material, the temporary short of electrocity that drives the robots. The robots do not get sick, but this does not necessarily mean that they never stop working.
Second, the arguer estimates better output considering the little mistaking rate that the robot owns, but this estimation is not persuasive as well because of the following two reasons. The very first reason is that the mistaking rate is not fully responsible to the output rate, the working efficiency of the robot, the producing schedule, and the amount of the robots that the factory employs can all affect the output. Just image that how can higher output comes out when you are facing a robot with low efficiency even if it can make little mistakes.
Third, a final conclusion that, the workers' gladness of shifting to the alternative tasks, which proves impossible and unsubstantial that many positions need special training, and some of them even need qualification, which impedes the free shift of the workers from one position to another without any training at all. And what 's more, a robot does not mean fully automatical controllings, it needs artificial controlling and monitoring. A robot can only work under a pre-scheduled process stored in a chip, but without any independent thinking, thus the workers of the factory are still needed, but their works are changing: they are not working directly, but controlling the robots instead. Undoubtly, even ths shift needs to be trained.
In sum, this argument is not substantial at all and cannot convince me the three conclusions that the arguer provides until he can offer me more evidence such as the robots are working in an equal efficiency as the ordinary workers or even higher; the supplies of the materials, electricity and other resources can be fully maintained; and special training is provided to the workers for their shifts to alternative positions. 占座#23
我的是argument 161
TOPIC: ARGUMENT210 - The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine."Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."
WORDS: 403 TIME: 00:22:08 DATE: 2009/2/9 17:25:47
The speaker asserts that with the widen use of the robot that the factory will face less absenteeism, and better output, workers of the factory would prefer to shift to more interesting tasks. While, this argument is not fully reasoned and can not convince me that above consequece（consequence） can be resulted in.
First, the arguer implies that absenteeism can be reduced because robots never get sick. It is not the case at all, as we clearly know that absenteeism refers to many factors, such as the failure of supplies of the raw material, the temporary short of electrocity(electricity) that drives the robots. The robots do not get sick, but this does not necessarily mean that they never stop working.
Second, the arguer estimates better output (作者并不能增加产量)considering the little mistaking rate that the robot owns, but this estimation is not persuasive as well because of the following two reasons. The very first reason is that the mistaking rate is not fully responsible to the output rate, the working efficiency of the robot, the producing schedule, and the amount of the robots that the factory employs can all affect the output. Just image that how can higher output comes out when you are facing a robot with low efficiency even if it can make little mistakes.
Third, a final conclusion that, the workers' gladness of shifting to the alternative tasks, which proves impossible and unsubstantial that many positions need special training, and some of them even need qualification, which impedes the free shift of the workers from one position to another without any training at all. And what’s more, a robot does not mean fully automatically controlling; it needs artificial controlling and monitoring. A robot can only work under a pre-scheduled process stored in a chip, but without any independent thinking, thus the workers of the factory are still needed, but their works are changing: they are not working directly, but controlling the robots instead. Undoubtly, even this shift needs to be trained.
In sum, this argument is not substantial at all and cannot convince me the three conclusions that the arguer provides until he can offer me more evidence such as the robots are working in an equal efficiency as the ordinary workers or even higher; the supplies of the materials, electricity and other resources can be fully maintained; and special training is provided to the workers for their shifts to alternative positions
1. 作者思路很清晰，逻辑错误找得也很不错。
2. 语言功底还可以，巨型多变，几乎没有重复句型。
3. 最让人佩服的是，作者还有很多时间剩余，希望作者可以讲这些时间用来检查。
argument 161
TOPIC: ARGUMENT161 - In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.WORDS: 374 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-2-9 21:49:57
In this argument, the author recommends that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits due to that a another study, the one which is conducted by the same researchers, found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. This argument contains several logical flaws and the author neglects some other possibilities which can make the recommendation nonsense.
In the first place, the author concludes that people do not often read literary classics because that they do not go to libraries and lead one. However, we can not get the conclusion just by the fact the most frequently checked out of libraries was the mystery novel after a careful reasoning. It is definitely possible that people prefer to buy the literary classics and collect them and to read them evermore and they may feel it bothers to have to go to libraries to borrow and return them. And other possibilities must be taken into account, too. So without ruling out the possibilities, the author wrongly gets the conclusion.
In the second place, the author assumes that the literary classics can not includes mystery novel, however, there are so many books which we can call them both literary classics and mystery novel. Therefore the conclusion that people do not borrow literary classics from libraries in Leeville is not accurate without excluding the possibility that the mystery novels people checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was also literary classics.
Finally, another possibility also exists that the mystery novels are now being in fashion and it is normal that the citizens in Leeville often go to library to lend one and it is does not mean that they prefer mystery novel to literary classics since maybe sometimes later, people will not choose them when they are not in fashion then. And another possibility exists that the people, these ones who were invested in the first study, has nothing to do with the people, those ones who were invested in the second study.
In sum, this argument, while it seems logical at first, has some fallacies in reasoning. The other fails to consider too many possibilities which can opposite the conclusion to get in the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits and therefore the argument means little. More information, excluding these possibilities, is needed to improve the argument.
占位26楼
[size=10.5pt][font=Calibri]In this argument, the author recommends that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits due to [color=red][u]that a[/u][/color] （[color=red]可去）[/color]another study, the one which is conducted by the same researchers, found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. This argument contains several logical flaws and the author neglects some other possibilities which can make the recommendation nonsense.In the first place, the author concludes that people do not often read literary classics because [u][color=red]that（可去） [/color][/u]they do not go to libraries and lead one. However, we can not [color=red]get（换成reason） [/color]the conclusion just by the [color=red]mere [/color]fact [color=red]that[/color] the most frequently checked out of libraries was the mystery novel [color=red][u]after a careful reasoning(删去[/u])[/color]. It is definitely possible that people prefer to buy the literary classics [color=red],[/color][color=#ff0000][u]and(删去)[/u][/color] [color=red]to[/color] collect them and to read them evermore [color=red]and[/color] [color=red]（but）[/color]they may feel it bothers to have to go to libraries to borrow and [color=red]to[/color] return them. And other possibilities must be taken into account, too. So without ruling out the possibilities, the [color=red]author wrongly gets the conclusion.（author's conclusion is doubtful.）
[/color] In the second place, the author assumes that the literary classics can not includes mystery novel, however, there are so many books which we can call them both literary classics and mystery novel. Therefore the conclusion that people do not borrow literary classics from libraries in Leeville is not accurate without excluding the possibility that the mystery novels people checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was also literary classics.
Finally, another possibility also exists that the mystery novels [color=red]are now being in fashion(happen to be fashionable at the moment)[/color] and it is normal that the citizens in Leeville often go to library to lend one [color=red]and it（，which）[/color] [color=red]is(删除)[/color] does not mean that they prefer mystery novel to literary classics since maybe sometimes later, people will not choose them when they are not in fashion then. [color=red]And another possibility exists that[/color] the people, these ones who were invested in the first study, has nothing to do with the people, those ones who were invested in the second study.
In sum, this argument, while it seems logical at first, has some fallacies in reasoning. The [color=red]other（author）[/color] fails to consider too many possibilities which can opposite the conclusion to get in the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits and therefore the argument means little. More information, excluding these possibilities, is needed to improve the argument.[/font][/size]
[size=10.5pt][font=Calibri][color=red]1、尽量减少and的使用次数，以免视觉疲劳[/color][/font][/size]
[size=10.5pt][font=Calibri][color=#ff0000]2、第四段another possibility exists that重复使用，导致有点混乱[/color][/font][/size]
[size=10.5pt][font=Calibri][color=#ff0000]3、个人认为应加强论证段间的连贯性[/color][/font][/size]
我的习作argument3
The following appeared in a newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis."In Megalopolis, the number of law school graduates who went to work for large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three years, whereas an increasing number of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firms. Even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries, law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms most likely because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. In a survey of first-year students at a leading law school, most agreed with the statement that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction. This finding suggests that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work."
正文：In the article the author concludes that the large law firms of Megalopolis (M) would need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To bolster his recommendation, the author points out that the number of graduates who work for large firms has decreased by 15 percent. The author also cites a survey to support his conclusion. However, this article contains several logical flaws, which make it unconvincing as it stands.
First, the decrease of 15 percent that the number of students who work for large firms is not necessarily that the graduates don not want to work for large firms. It is entirely possible that the large firms decrease the demand of new people serves to the 15 percent .Or perhaps the large firms need people who have experience, but the graduates don not have. Thus, maybe there are still many graduates want to work for large firms, but they do not have the chance, so they have to work for small firms. Without evidence that the 15 percent really due to the graduates do not willing to work for large firms, the author's recommendation that the large firms should offer graduates more benefits and less work hours is doubtful.
Secondly, the author assumes that the first year students at a leading law school can typify M'law school graduates. In the article, the author provides no evidence to indicate it. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that the graduates have different ideas with the first-year students. Moreover, the first-year students are "leading" school students, which cannot typify the whole law schools’ students. Even assuming that the leading school first-year students can reflect all the students, three years must pass until they would determine which firms to work for, and they may change their ideas over time.
Finally, the author falsely equals benefits and incentives to job satisfaction. If the most graduates really think that job satisfaction is more important than high salary, they may be not care how much the benefits and incentives. Thus, even if the large firms do as the author said, the graduates who care job satisfaction more than salary still go to work for small firms.
In sum, the author's recommendation is unconvincing. To bolster his conclusion, the author should provide the evidence that the graduates' choices really serve to the 15 percent decrease, or by way of a survey in M's whole graduates shows that most graduates care job satisfaction more than high salary. 改19楼
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman][size=12pt]TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
In this argument, the author concludes that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study of two groups of patient [color=#333399](patients)[/color]: the first group who took antibiotics recuperated earlier; the other group who took sugar pills instead of antibiotics did not recuperate earlier[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[color=royalblue]和前面有点重复不够简洁，最好变换一下句型词组[/color]）[/size][/font][size=12pt]. In addition, the author notes that secondary infections prevent some patients from healing quickly. However, this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.
To begin with, this study appears to suffer from statistical problems, which make the study's result unreliable. First, the number of the patients is not mentioned thus perhaps it is too small to draw any firm conclusion. Second, we are not informed anything about these two groups of patient[/size][color=royalblue][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[/size][/font][size=12pt]patients[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][/color][size=12pt][color=royalblue],[/color] who might be different from several factors, such as gene, blood group and the condition of muscle strain. These factors would result in different recuperation time. Third, these two groups of patients were treated by different doctors, different from where they specialize.[color=#333399] (distinguished in their specialized fields) [/color]Common sense tells us that a doctor who specializes in sports medicine will treat the patients in shorter time than a general physician[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[color=#333399]这个常识再用一句话解释一下会更好吧？[/color]）[/size][/font][size=12pt]. In short, unless sufficient number and randomicity of specimens are studied[/size][color=royalblue][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[/size][/font][size=12pt]provided[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]好些吧？这个不是研究出来的[/size][/font][size=12pt]~[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][/color][size=12pt] and the condition of treatment between these two group is similar[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[color=royalblue]治疗条件肯定是不相同的啊[/color][/size][/font][color=royalblue][size=12pt]~[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]应该说调查者的身体状况吧[/size][/font][size=12pt]~[/size][/color][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][size=12pt], the study is unconvincing.
Even if the study's result is acceptable, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between taking antibiotics and shorter recuperation time. Involved in the argument, the second groups[/size][color=royalblue][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[/size][/font][size=12pt]group[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][/color][size=12pt] of patients, who took sugar pill instead of antibiotics, needed more the recuperation time than the other group, but the author doesn't list the use of sugar pill, which might be harmful to the treatment. What is more, this conclusion is based on the doubtful assumption that secondary infections keep patients from healing quickly. With this unproved assumption, antibiotic cannot be contributed to[/size][font=宋体][color=royalblue][size=12pt]（这里应该是主动形式吧）[/size][/color][/font][size=12pt] decreasing recuperation time.
Finally even though antibiotic is helpful to decrease recuperation time, it is unreasonable to advice[/size][color=royalblue][font=宋体][size=12pt]（[/size][/font][size=12pt]advise[/size][font=宋体][size=12pt]）[/size][/font][/color][size=12pt] all patient diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics. Everything has both positive and negative effect [color=#333399](effects),[/color] which cannot be ignored. Antibiotics may help the treatment, while they may harm the health of patient too. Consequently, each patient should be well examined before taking antibiotics, rather than advising every patient to take them. [color=royalblue]([/color][/size][font=宋体][color=royalblue][size=12pt]这句话前后主语不一致啊[/size][/color][/font][color=royalblue][size=12pt])
[/size][/color][size=12pt]
To sum up, the author fails to maintain the conclusion that all patient diagnosed with muscle strain should be advised to take antibiotics. To make it more convincing, the author should give more information in three respects: (1) a scientific sampling in the study;[/size][font=宋体][color=royalblue][size=12pt]（我觉得这里主要是实验对照的问题，取样的问题仿佛倒是没那么重要）[/size][/color][/font][size=12pt] (2) the reality of secondary infections after severe muscle strain; (3) which type of patients is unavailable for antibiotics.[/size]
[size=12pt][/size]
[font=宋体][size=11.5pt][color=royalblue][font=宋体][size=11.5pt]让步攻击进行的不错，语言也不错，再稍微细心点会更好[/size][/font][size=11.5pt][/size]
[/color][/size][/font][/font][/size]
[[i] 本帖最后由 遥瑶 于 2009-2-10 17:02 编辑 [/i]] 把我的贴上来~大家拍啊！！！::z1
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]TOPIC: ARGUMENT14 - The following appeared in a memo from the owner of Green Thumb Gardening Center, a small business serving a suburban town. [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]"There is evidence that consumers are becoming more and more interested in growing their own vegetables. A national survey conducted last month indicated that many consumers were dissatisfied with the quality of fresh vegetables available in supermarkets. And locally, the gardening magazine Great Gardens has sold out at the Village News stand three months in a row. Thus, we at Green Thumb Gardening Center can increase our profits by greatly expanding the variety of vegetable seeds we stock for gardeners this coming spring."[/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]WORDS: 540
（第一篇限时失败） DATE: 2009-2-9 16:24:11[/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]In this memo the owner of Green Thumb Gardening Center concludes that the center can increase their profits by expanding the variety of vegetable seeds they stock for gardeners. To substantiate this conclusion, the author cites the result of a national survey showing discontent with vegetables in supermarkets. An additional reason given in support of the conclusion is that a kind of gardening magazine has sold out three months in a row. At first glance, the argument seems to be convincing, but further reflection reveals that it is weak and have some logical flaws.[/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the nationwide survey applies specifically to this town. Yet it is quite possible that those respondents are living in downtowns, where supermarkets are their main or even only source of vegetables. Perhaps vegetables in supermarkets tend to be not quite fresh; as a result, people are not satisfied; whereas in this suburban town, residents are more likely to buy fresh vegetables in groceries or from farms. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the quality of fresh vegetables in supermarkets is not necessarily leading to a trend of growing themselves. After all, it is a time-consuming and effort-consuming project. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the author can not justifiably conclude that consumers are becoming more and more interested in growing their own vegetables.[/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]Moreover, based on the mere evidence that one kind of magazine sells well in a particular stand the author infers that people would like to grow vegetables. The author fails to inform me the content of this magazine and the purpose of the readers. Whether they buy for instructing in their growing vegetables or just for beautifying their garden is not confirmed. Besides, the author overlooks the amount of the magazine in circulation, without which it is entirely possible that the amount is so small that it is easy enough to sell out in a short period. In short, the evidence provided is so scant that the argument is wholly unconvincing. [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]Furthermore, even if the consumers are eager to grow their own vegetables, the center will not necessarily earn a substantial profit by increasing the variety of their seeds. The memo provides no information about the costs of expanding the variety and what kinds people prefer. Perhaps they are only interested in some certain kinds or the local earth is suitable only for a few kinds to grow in. Besides, the author neglected another key factor when analyzing an investment, that is, competition. There is no thorough lost-benefit analysis in the argument. If the increase in the cost overweighs that in benefits, the center will fall in trouble of losing rather than gain money.[/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/size]
[size=12pt][font=Times New Roman]In sum, the author fails to substantiate its claim that profits will increase, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the number of people who are really interested in growing their own vegetables. Additionally, the author would have to make a more thorough survey of the local seeds market on the whole. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more acceptable.[/font][/size]
由于现在没可改文章，按照规则我改19#，并贴上我的文章
2.The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres."Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."
七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的规定。
(正文)
The author of argument recommends that in order to raise the property values of Deerhaven Acres(DA),all homeowners should adopt sets of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support his or her recommendation ,the author cites the fact that the average property values have tripled in nearby Brookville (B) community since its homeowners adopted a set of restrains on how to the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors should be pained seven years ago ..However, such reasons suffer certain problems ,which can not convince me .
To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the growth of average property values in B is the result of the adoption of a set of restrictions on how to landscape the community's yards and paint the exterior side of homes . Nevertheless ,there is on clear evidence to substantiate such causal relationship .Factually , it is possible that other factors such as the development of national real estate and the advancements of tourist industry in B are responsible for the enlargement of property values in B .Thus ,without strong evidence, it is impossible to establish the causal relationship between the adoption of a series of restrictions and the increase of average property in B .
In addition, although the causal relationship mentioned above is established , the success of B following the restrictions would not necessarily mean the similar result will take place in DA ,if DA implements the some restriction policy .One the one hand , the policy of restrictions in B have been implemented for seven years .During the seven years , the condition of social and economic environment maybe changed considerably and the policy of seven years ago is entirely possible has little positive effects today; on the other hand, DA and B might have few similarity socio-economically .Thus such disparities would result in the different consequences of adopting the same restrictions in the two communities. In short , the arguments has suffered a false analogy.
What is more , the author fails to consider other effective methods to promote the property values in DA .Rather than adopting a set of restrictions on the decoration of the community , ways such as advancing the tourist in DA and attracting investment from the culture industry would raise the property values .Also, the improvement of management of DA ,which would lead to the peaceful and harmonious environment of DA and hence raise the proper value as well. So, the author has considered the improving methods incompletely when it comes to raising the property value in DA.
In sum , the argument is unconvincing as it stands . In order to bolster it, the author must offer more information to build the causal relationship between the adoption of restrictions and the increase of average property values in B and support the similarity of DA and B. Again, alternative methods should be taken into consideration for increasing the property values in DA.
纠正一下，我改30#，楼上是我的文章，请狂拍
纠正一下，我改30#，楼上是我的文章，请狂拍我改的30#，我的在31#
TOPIC: ARGUMENT14 - The following appeared in a memo from the owner of Green Thumb Gardening Center, a small business serving a suburban town."There is evidence that consumers are becoming more and more interested in growing their own vegetables. A national survey conducted last month indicated that many consumers were dissatisfied with the quality of fresh vegetables available in supermarkets. And locally, the gardening magazine Great Gardens has sold out at the Village News stand three months in a row. Thus, we at Green Thumb Gardening Center can increase our profits by greatly expanding the variety of vegetable seeds we stock for gardeners this coming spring."
WORDS: 540
（第一篇限时失败） DATE: 2009-2-9 16:24:11
In this memo the owner of Green Thumb Gardening Center concludes that the center can increase their profits by expanding the variety of vegetable seeds they stock for gardeners. To substantiate this conclusion, the author cites the result of a national survey showing discontent with vegetables in supermarkets. An additional reason given in support of the conclusion is that a kind of gardening magazine has sold out three months in a row. At first glance, the argument seems to be convincing, but further reflection reveals that it is weak and have some logical flaws.
To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the nationwide survey applies specifically to this town. Yet it is quite possible that those respondents are living in downtowns, where supermarkets are their main or even only source of vegetables. Perhaps vegetables in supermarkets tend to be not quite fresh; as a result, people are not satisfied（这是两句话，建议改成从句或用句号隔开）; whereas in this suburban town, residents are more likely to buy fresh vegetables in groceries or from farms. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the quality of fresh vegetables in supermarkets is not necessarily leading to a trend of growing themselves. After all, it is a time-consuming and effort-consuming project. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the author can not justifiably conclude that consumers are becoming more and more interested in growing their own vegetables.
Moreover, based on the mere evidence that one kind of magazine sells well in a particular stand the author infers that people would like to grow vegetables. The author fails to inform me the content of this magazine and the purpose of the readers. Whether they buy for instructing in their growing vegetables or just for beautifying their garden is not confirmed. Besides, the author overlooks the amount of the magazine in circulation, without which it is entirely possible that the amount is so small that it is easy enough to sell out in a short period. In short, the evidence provided is so scant that the argument is wholly（WHOLLY 这个词过于绝对，建议不用） unconvincing.
Furthermore, even if the consumers are eager to grow their own vegetables, the center will not necessarily earn a substantial profit by increasing the variety of their seeds. The memo provides no information about the costs of expanding the variety and what kinds （OF）people prefer. Perhaps they are only interested in some certain kinds or the local earth is suitable only for a few kinds to grow in. Besides, the author neglected another key factor when analyzing an investment, that is, competition. There is no thorough lost（COST）-benefit analysis in the argument. If the increase in the cost overweighs that in benefits, the center will fall in trouble of losing rather than gain money.
In sum, the author fails to substantiate its claim that profits will increase, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the number of people who are really interested in growing their own vegetables. Additionally, the author would have to make a more thorough survey of the local seeds market on the whole. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more acceptable.
总评：这是一篇不错的文章
从错误点看，找得很准，论证的很充分
从结构上看，很完整，逻辑清晰，信号词用的不错。
从语言上看， 词句有变化，避免了重复用词
稍有不足就是有少量语法错误，同时部分句子有点别扭。
28#怎么没人改啊
我都等了一天了，求拍啊 *** 该帖被屏蔽 *** [size=5][color=red][b]公告：28楼待修改[/b][/color][/size] 改28# 滴~~~
[font=Times New Roman]In the article the author concludes that the large law firms of Megalopolis (M) would need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To bolster his recommendation, the author points out that the number of graduates who work for large firms has decreased by 15 percent. The author also cites a survey to support his conclusion. However, this article contains several logical flaws, which make it unconvincing as it stands.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]First, the decrease of 15 percent that the number of students who work for large firms is not necessarily that the graduates [color=red]don not [/color]want to work for large firms. It is entirely possible that the large firms decrease the demand of [color=red]new people[/color] serve[color=red]s [/color]to the 15 percent .Or perhaps the large firms need people who have experience, but the graduates [color=red]don not[/color] have. [color=#ffc000]Thus, maybe there are still many graduates want to work for large firms, but they do not have the chance, so they have to work for small firms. [/color][/font][color=#ffc000][font=宋体]这句话给人感觉重复了，很累赘，没有必要加吧[/font][/color][font=Times New Roman]Without evidence that the 15 percent really due to the graduates do not willing to work for large firms, the author's recommendation that the large firms should offer graduates more benefits and less work hours is doubtful.[/font][color=#7030a0][font=宋体]自己论证的部分太少了，很多都是套话啊[/font][/color][color=#7030a0][font=Times New Roman]~~[/font][/color]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Secondly, the author assumes that the first year students at a leading law school can [color=red]typify(represent?)[/color] M'law school graduates. In the article, the author provides no evidence to indicate it. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that the graduates have different ideas with the first-year students. Moreover, the first-year students are "leading" school students, which cannot typify the whole law schools’ students. Even assuming that the leading school first-year students can reflect all the students, three years must pass until they would determine which firms to work for, and they may change their ideas over time.[/font][color=#7030a0][font=宋体]这段论证太混乱了，其实就是想说一年级学生不能代表毕业生的想法，那就直接说三年内也许会有很多变化啊。先说怀疑的理由[/font][/color][color=#7030a0][font=Times New Roman]----[/font][/color][color=#7030a0][font=宋体]再分析可能的原因。[/font][/color][color=#7030a0][/color]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Finally, the author falsely equals benefits and incentives to job satisfaction. If the most graduates really think that job satisfaction is more important than high salary, they may be not care how much the benefits and incentives.[/font][color=#7030a0][font=宋体]详细展开下吧，可以说下工作满足感包括哪些，尽量让文章充实些吧[/font][/color][font=Times New Roman][color=#7030a0]~~~ [/color]Thus, even if the large firms do as the author said, the graduates who care job satisfaction more than salary still go to work for small firms.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]In sum, the author's recommendation is unconvincing. To bolster his conclusion, the author should provide the evidence that the graduates' choices really serve to the 15 percent decrease, or by way of a survey in M's whole graduates shows that most graduates care job satisfaction more than high salary.[/font]
[color=#00b050][font=Times New Roman] [/font][/color]
[color=#00b050][font=宋体]呃[/font][/color][color=#00b050][font=Times New Roman]~~[/font][/color][color=#00b050][font=宋体]总的来说，就是套话太多了，很重的模板痕迹，尽量多一些自己的分析。还有就是分析的时候注意思路，不要乱拼凑，先整理好思路再写吧[/font][/color][color=#00b050][font=Times New Roman]~~[/font][/color]
[color=#00b050][font=宋体]改的不当的地方就请见谅了啊[/font][/color][color=#00b050][/color]
[[i] 本帖最后由 铁蛋o0 于 2009-2-11 16:28 编辑 [/i]] 先贴下我自己的 argument 238
In this argument, the arguer advocates that MV College should offer more courses in business and computer technology and hire additional job counselors to help students with their resumes and interviewing skillsto help MV's graduates to find jobs. Although this argument seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.
In the first place, the arguer assumes that graduates from GM College enjoyed a better employment situation for that 90% of GM's graduates found jobs after graduation while MV's only 70%. Although it is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that there were much more graduates in MV than in GM. An appropriate example is not far to seek. If there are 20000 graduates from MV but only 8000 from GM, we cannot definitely say that more graduates from GM get jobs. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that the high percentage of graduates, from GM, getting jobs is owned to the more business courses and more job counselors. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that GM College is a key college in that country and have a higher admission standard for students, which may contribute to the better employment situation for graduates in GM. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Students from Harvard, one of the most famous university in America, usually are more easy to find a job than students from those general university, not for its famous cemmercial department but high-quality teaching of school and excellent academic achievement of students. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer fails to consider possible differences between GM and MV College that might help bring a different resault for MV College. Perhaps there are more business companies around GM College and graduates on business are more likely to find jobs there and contrarily around MV there are rarely business companies but much more industry factories. For that matter, MV's students will face a worse situation for employment because of furious competition with graduates from GM. In addition, the best way to help students to get employments is to help improve thier professional skills not interviewing skills.
To sum up, the argument that discussed above is not based on valid evidence and sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensible for conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite evidence that is more persuasive and take every possible consideration into account.
占坐我改38#的,这是我的,请狂拍,我昨天31#文章还没人改,麻烦大家别忘了
47.Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical records survive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A large meteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是巨大的火山喷发，要么是撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。
(正文)
The author concludes that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption . To support this conclusion, the author cites certain history records and makes same assumptions and interferences .However, careful examination reveals that such argument suffers some fallacies, which make it is unconvincing for me .
To begin with, the author fails to offer the clear evidence to support the discovery that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. The mere fact that some accounts found both is Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures can not indicate that Earth ,as a whole ,was suffering a cooling process . It is possible that , only parts of Asia and Europe experienced such process .However , other continents such as the American and African had experienced an opposite process .Thus, the premise of this argument that there was a cooling process on the Earth in the mid-sixth century is not compelling .
In addition, even though there was a real cooling phenomenon , the author falsely analyzes the cause and effect of such natural process .In this argument the author assumes that a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures considerably would cause the cooling of the Earth. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to support such assumption .It was possible that the cooling had nothing to do with the dust cloud .So, without strong evidence , this assumption is unwarranted .
Further more ,even though the causal relationship mentioned above is established , the author unfairly equates the Asian historical records which mentioned that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption with a dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere. In fact, a loud boom was not necessarily mean a larger dust cloud . It is entirely possible that a loud boom was only a result of lunar effects .According , the existence of a large dust clouds which would lead to the lower temperature of Earth is doubtable .let alone the what cause of those dust clouds.
In sum , the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it , the author must first provide clear evidence to confirm the existence of the cooling process of Earth. Also , much more information is needed to build the causal relationship between a large dust cloud and the lower temperature of the Earth .What is more ,the author must substantiate that a loud boom indicate a large dust cloud .Otherwise, this argument would be invalidate .
我改的38#, 39#是我的,31楼也是我的(被漏掉了),
In this argument, the arguer advocates that MV College should offer more courses in business and computer technology and hire additional job counselors to help students with their resumes and interviewing skillsto help MV's graduates to find jobs. Although this argument seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.（建议在第一段，也点一下作者的理由，不要光说他是观点）In the first place, the arguer assumes that graduates from GM College enjoyed a better employment situation for that 90% of GM's graduates found jobs after graduation while MV's only 70%. Although it is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that there were much more graduates in MV than in GM. An appropriate example is not far to seek. If there are 20000 graduates from MV but only 8000 from GM, we cannot definitely say that more graduates from GM get jobs. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely. 我觉得你的错误点论证的有点牵强，建议从不对称的对比的角度来写这个错误，也就是说90%和70%具有不同的内涵，因为题目对一方做了很多限定
In the second place, the arguer assumes that the high percentage of graduates, from GM, getting jobs is owned to the more business courses and more job counselors. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that GM College is a key college in that country and have a higher admission standard for students, which may contribute to the better employment situation for graduates in GM. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. Students from Harvard, one of the most famous university in America, usually are more easy to find a job than students from those general university, not for its famous cemmercial department but high-quality teaching of school and excellent academic achievement of students. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
The last but not the least important（不要important就可以了）, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer fails to consider possible differences between GM and MV College that might help bring a different resault（result） for MV College. Perhaps there are more business companies around GM College and graduates on business are more likely to find jobs there and contrarily around MV there are rarely business companies but much more industry factories. For that matter, MV's students will face a worse situation for employment because of furious competition with graduates from GM. In addition, the best way to help students to get employments is to help improve thier (their)professional skills not interviewing skills.
To sum up, the argument that discussed above is not based on valid evidence and sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensible for conclusive argument(？好象有点问题). In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite evidence that is more persuasive and take every possible consideration into account.
总评：
1、 错误点找的还不错，但第一段论证不是很有力/
2、 结构上比较完整，思路也很清晰，信号词用的不错。
3、 语言还可以，但有一些小毛病。
加油！