小麦可的分析——argument全部官方范文分析

小麦可的分析——argument全部官方范文分析内容摘要：

gument: K2 @amp。 B6 [6 x t% p* \ E) z。 Y *that preventive and protective gear are not the same + n. H1 V o. g2 T1 m. g *that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious z1 v1 A h M% L *that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries *that gear may not need to be highquality to be beneficial The discussion is smoothly and logically anized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and errorfree. Sentences are varied and plex, and diction is expressive and precise. 6 d, e6 m }. @ i0 ]3 P9 W In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored 6.。 @+ A* P1 G3 W$ damp。 T) y。 W0 a) @! damp。 u5 q) g 麦可的小总结： , o7 O。 E u: A: ^39。 G% ~ （ 1）分析原题目中可取之处；指出原文中不足之处；推出论据中的潜在后果。 （这里的第一点展开证明，这样 虽然没有直接复述题目，但是这三点说完后整个框架就很清楚了） (2)正文中第一段质疑我认为的核心假设错误（从原题目中的可取之处中寻找，要把它唯一一点正确的东西也给质疑了），后三段按原文逻辑顺序攻击三点，如本文中人的本质 ==〉人受的伤的差别 ==〉为防受伤，买质量好的就有用。 可以看出，这三点是与原文中三段论式论证环环相扣的。 这就是前面第一部分讲解 awintro 中提到的 analytical writing 的具体应用。 d1 F2 E) E! r/ h! Z39。 b3 B% @ （ 3）逻辑方面的论证方法为：寻找并质疑隐含假设，列举它因，加条件（常识性条件，或者限定性条件）后讨论，提出建议。 (4)在语言方面的论证手法有：分情况讨论，举反例推缪。 （ 5）最后的时候还是要首先肯定原文的可取之处如初衷好啊，然后指出需要思考的更加完善才行。 要是思考的不完善会有什么后果。 （范文最后一段基本属于扯淡） . 第二篇文章： The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors39。 reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields. For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other B。 G, i9 Y39。 {+ _0 Y Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to bee candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics.amp。 Z M3 B( Y9 m+ u$ J+ e2 M E+ r, w4 P And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.39。 y$ r。 R$ x4 w D4 C/ { 原题逻辑顺序： UC 老师牛 ==〉 UC 学生牛 ==〉想牛就选择 UC .7 d1 u0 s3 K0 i。 D p2 m SAMPLE1 (score 6) While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the acplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training. 首先承认 UC 的声望看起来确实不错，算是部分的同意了原文的观点，并简短的展开论证说事因为老师牛。 随后便指出还有他因，但是并没有展开它因。 (留到正文第一段来展开 ) The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study. 这里指出论据的不充足。 实际上是在攻击原文的论据逻辑链。 Other departments are not listed。 is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their acplishments and kudos to the publicity office? 给出了论证：提出两个问题进行质疑。 1 ^6 i( S% t1 ?1 O8 j2 t _。 s$ \。 8 d, m+ N ^ F p1 X. E The assumption is that because English and Physics have excellent brains in the faculty offices, their teaching skills and their abilities to pass on knowledge and the love of learning to their students are equally laudable. BODY 打头第一段与开头段第一句话对应，具体提出了他因。 同时，还注 意到所让步的内容（老师牛 学校 就牛）仍然是一致的。 质疑：老师牛，就能提供牛的教育吗。 Unfortunately, this is often not the case. 一针见血的指出不是这么回事。 A prospective student would certainly be advised to investigate thoroughly the teaching talents and attitudes of the professors, the library and research facilities, the physical plant of the departments in which he or she was planning to study, as well as the living arrangements on or off campus, and the facilities available for leisure activities and ：还有其他的因素决定教育的水平的。 论证方法为列举他因。 这里的论证给人的感觉就是 列的东西多，而且细。 + R. l! p. i% t! u T39。 v This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general. 这里对于原文中逻辑链中的论据不足进行证明。 实际上就是和开头段后两句话（只有两个系不够）相对应，进一步展开进行证明原文的论据怎么不充分，我们要全面评估 UC 除了只知道提供的两个系的信息外还要知道哪些。 Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education。 it only praises the acplishments of a few recent graduates and professors.。 h$ U: F$ R% a 这里属于复述原文，立好靶子做好准备开始攻击。 More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student. Are the teaching faculty approachable? Are they helpful? Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge? Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement? How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes? Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students? Are the campus buildings accessible。 how is the University handling all those cars? Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school? What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?一开始攻击就一连问了十几个问题，显得很雄辩，这里问了这么多问题，核心只有一个，学校老师学生之间三角关系到底怎么样。 具体论证是先说师生关系（老师对待学生怎么样，学生对待老 师怎么样），再说学校和学生（学校给学生提供了哪些便利），最后说学校和老师和学生的关系（老师通过学校为了提高给学生的教育提出了什么意见么） .可以说是层层递进，还是很有章法的。 论证手法为列举他因。 7 z5 _+ l% S+ d) l7 Q8 q s What about that 75% employment record? 这里质疑了逻辑链中的另一个论据，即毕业生找工作的数据也能推出学校牛。 核心论证方法为质疑假设，提出建议。 Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do. 这里论证方法为质疑假。