A21求拍，附加outline。我想问argument真的需要加很多无关的句子吗

erencie

题目是这样的：The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.
"Twenty years ago, Dr.Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
下面是我写的argument 21.先来个很粗糙的outline:

Point 1: “being reared by parents” may cause “talking more time about parents” but the reverses not necessarily true
Point 2: Time difference (20 years) / many things may change
Point 3: Even if, still does not prove that observation-center approach is invalid – Dr. Field may adopt a problematic way that is nonstandard
下面是正文：

Dr. Karp concludes in this article that the interview-centered approach he adopts in Tertia is superior to Dr. Field’s observation-centered method in establishing a more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions in Tertia and other island cultures. To justify this conclusion he cites that children he’d interviewed in Tertia show strong tendency to talk about their biological parents, despite the claim made by Dr. Field twenty years ago that they are reared by the whole village. However, I find this argument specious on several grounds.

The chief problem in this argument is that the author falsely assumes that “talking more about parents” infers “being reared by parents”. Although children who are reared by their biological parents are inclined to talk more about their parents, it does not necessarily mean that the reverse is also true. Perhaps the children are altogether reared by the entire village; and meanwhile, they are aware of their biological relationships with adults in the village, or even kept notified about information of their own parents. In this way, children would tend to talk more about their parents, even though they are not reared by them. Thus, the implicit assumption underlying this argument, that children talked more about their parents infers that they are reared by their parents, is unwarranted.

The author’s inference also rests on another assumption that during a period of twenty years the child-rearing tradition in Tertia remains unchanged. During this time, not only the experiment sample—the group of children in Tertia--has changed, but also the child-rearing tradition, which could be influenced by outsiders coming into the islands since the time when Dr. Field conducted his observation. Without accounting for the possible changes during this time period, the author cannot convince me that his interview-centered method has disproved Dr. Field’s experiment results and thus is a better way of studying child-rearing culture in the islands.

Even if children in Tertia are indeed not reared by the whole village, it still accomplishes little towards bolstering the conclusion that the observation-centered method of studying cultures is invalid, let alone a further inference that the interview-centered method is thus superior. Since the author does not present details of exactly how Dr.Field conducted his research, it is entirely possible that Dr. Field did not adopt standard ways of observation-centered method to conduct his research; for example, he might draw the conclusion about child-rearing tradition from an insufficiently small sample of children in Tertia. If this is the case, the failure of Dr. Field’s research to find out the true child-rearing tradition in the island does not indicate the whole observation-centered method is worthless in studying cultures. This again undermines the author’s final conclusion that his interview-centered method is better.

In sum, Dr. Karp cannot justify his conclusion that interview-centered method is a much more accurate way of studying cultures, on the basis of the scant evidence presented in this article. To strengthen his argument, he must provide more details which could strongly prove that children talking more about their parents are indeed reared by them; he must also ensure that the child-rearing tradition in the islands remains unchanged for a long period and that Dr. Field did used standard way of observation-centered method.

我的问题：
在写argument的时候，总感觉之前设计好的template用不太上。而且有点不习惯加上那种长长的句子只为了说明the argument is invalid。我想请问一下，argument真的要加很多套词吗？

竹林中人

不必要的，那些形式太多人用了，看多了有一种厌倦的感觉

erencie

回楼上： 嗯，我也是这么感觉。但是不知道如果没有套词的话，写作速度会不会慢下来。。。

而且最重要的，我不是很了解，不知道6分的argument主要是看什么优点。一篇套词很少，仅凭自己对那个article的当场的理解的argument，不知道能不能算高分。

竹林中人

回楼上： 嗯，我也是这么感觉。但是不知道如果没有套词的话，写作速度会不会慢下来。。。

而且最重要的，我不是很了解，不知道6分的argument主要是看什么优点。一篇套词很少，仅凭自己对那个article的当场的理解的argument，不知道能不能算高分。

-- by 会员 erencie (2012/5/4 21:35:14)

6分作文，有一点是对语言的驾驭能力的要求，对句式的灵活选择，长短句错落有致，语法的熟练运用，还有词汇的恰到好处，这不是套用一些所谓的套词可以做到的，而是语言功底，需要积累。我用某个词，不是刻意用，而是自然而然的，我用某个句式，不是刻意为了调整节奏，而是一种习惯。

erencie

回复竹林中人：

谢谢~看来还是要勤练和积累比较重要。

你觉得我这篇argument离6分距离有多远？

竹林中人

回复竹林中人：

谢谢~看来还是要勤练和积累比较重要。

你觉得我这篇argument离6分距离有多远？

-- by 会员 erencie (2012/5/5 20:22:42)

呵呵，我只能说4分很有可能，因为argu 6分也不简单，按照我们一般人3.5分或者3分的作文成绩，I+A就是6到7分，如此看来，argu得6分的可能性很小，按照新东方老师说的，其实最终我们I和A相差不多，两个三分或者一个三一个四，如此等等