ChaseDream

标题: 请教大家AA028 [打印本页]

作者: new_new 时间: 2005-5-12 21:47
标题: 请教大家AA028

28. The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.

“Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.”

不知道大家AA28找的错误是什么，我看了范文的两点错误：

1 the author assumes that reducing shuttle fares and increasing parking fees are the only available solution to the problem

2 the author assumes that reducing shuttle fees and increasing parking fees are mutually exclusive alternatives.

我怎么看了半天觉得这两个错误跟一个错误差不多啊，请教大家都找出什么错误了，谢谢！

作者: judydongxueni 时间: 2005-5-12 22:11

我也觉得没有其他的错误了，但是象下面这样写可能会好一点：

1.对原因估计的可能不对.由作者给出的他认为必须执行的解决方案来看,作者一定认为人们不坐往返巴士而是开车去地铁站的原因是巴士车费相对于地铁站的停车费来说比较贵.To begin with, by concluding that the transit company must either reduce shuttle fares or increase parking fees, the author assumes that these are the only available solutions to the problem of limited shuttle use.但事实原因可能还有很多.例如:巴士的环境不好速度比较慢中间间隔时间太长车站位置不好等等.
2.相应的作者所提出的两个必须要执行的解决方案也就不一定实用.应对于上述提到的问题可能一个比较好的解决方案是:对巴士进行装修把车站设置在更为便利的地方提高巴士的车速缩短时间间隔.

作者: new_new 时间: 2005-5-12 22:16
谢谢斑竹，帮我拓宽思路了

作者: liujiantyxf 时间: 2005-12-22 01:02
ding

作者: jhleoh 时间: 2005-12-27 16:18

这题的确没有很多东西可写，要充字数有点难。谢谢！

作者: autuma 时间: 2006-1-9 20:49

谢谢，终于明白了些...

作者: yyleaf 时间: 2006-1-15 12:12

试找了三个原因，与大家讨论：

1、projection有可能本身不合理；

2、assume原因是因为人们drive不一定对，比如：有可能taxi什么的，drive 可能只占一小部分；

3、要么票降价，要么提高parking费没有考虑其他人们不坐shuttle的原因，如安全等。

作者: ShangGMAT 时间: 2007-2-26 14:47
谢谢！！！！！！！！！！！

作者: springsound 时间: 2008-5-22 16:50

以下是引用yyleaf在2006-1-15 12:12:00的发言：

试找了三个原因，与大家讨论：

1、projection有可能本身不合理；

2、assume原因是因为人们drive不一定对，比如：有可能taxi什么的，drive 可能只占一小部分；

3、要么票降价，要么提高parking费没有考虑其他人们不坐shuttle的原因，如安全等。

刚刚练完这篇。我写的时候也写到这一点：the author assumes that driving and taking shuttes are the only available transportation methods for commuters to go to the subway. 但是现在回过头来想，作者究竟有没有作这样的假设呢？好象……是没有？

与大家讨论。

作者: ruru8ruru8 时间: 2008-6-7 11:25

用must应该是有这样假设吧

作者: uwaki 时间: 2008-6-14 21:36

我觉得象这种本身攻击点比较少的文章可以多写一点可行的其他改进来充字数..

不一定要死揪着找攻击点

作者: c_fishchou 时间: 2008-6-21 21:16

刚做了这题的提纲，也拿出来请大家讨论一下：

1.Reduce buses fare or increase parking price are not the only solution on this issue.（这个跟楼主写出来的一样，嘻嘻）

2.Use of shuttle buses less maybe not becoz of the fare, but becoz the line of bus is not good, or service is bad, or security problem.

3.shutle bus is one kind of public service, so increase volume is not the only target for them, in order to decrease costs, they can also think about reduce the amount of shuttle bus if necessary, or change the line.

作者: cannahere 时间: 2010-2-26 11:06
我觉得这篇的核心问题是论点和论据不搭配
evidence与conclusion无关
evidence：在说地铁人过多，而bus人少-----其对应的论点应该是说怎么解决地铁人过多的问题
conclusion：说让drive的人坐bus的解决方法----解决的是drive的人过多的问题

两个内容驴头不对马嘴

作者: 段七七 时间: 2010-3-2 11:07
我也有疑问丫！
关于是不是一定是drive car或者shuttle buses，会不会是句子用了IF的句式，if the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there....所以就不存在这个错误了呢

作者: crocdile 时间: 2010-10-19 10:56
我的提纲，NN给指导一下：
1.   no casual relationship:lower commuter use of the shuttle buses may results from another reasons,such as poor condition of the shuttle busses ,a route too remote for most riders,more convient taxi taking.
2.   not sufficient：assumes the reducing the shuttle bus fares and increasing the price of parking are the only critical factors to increase the ridership.
3.   either-or thinking:reducing the shuttle bus fares and increasing the price of parking is not mutuall exclusive alternatives.

作者: xiaoqiaoli 时间: 2011-5-3 20:51

我的提纲，NN给指导一下：
1. no casual relationship:lower commuter use of the shuttle buses may results from another reasons,such as poor condition of the shuttle busses ,a route too remote for most riders,more convient taxi taking.
2. not sufficient：assumes the reducing the shuttle bus fares and increasing the price of parking are the only critical factors to increase the ridership.
3. either-or thinking:reducing the shuttle bus fares and increasing the price of parking is not mutuall exclusive alternatives.

-- by 会员 crocdile (2010/10/19 10:56:24)

第一点所说的causal relationship 是不是指的commuter use的减少和drive to the stations 的人太多？如果不是，那这一点cusual relationship 指的是什么呢？

作者: jiaerbaobei 时间: 2011-5-3 23:51
1.causal oversimplification, 不坐车的原因不光是车费，还可能是人们走着去锻炼身体。。。
2.wrong mutually exclusive alternatives，降票价和增停车费不是互斥的，可以一起干

这篇看得我好纠结，找不出什么

作者: yue129 时间: 2011-7-19 16:58
1。把相关性当做因果关系有人不坐公交的原因并不是公交费用和停车费的原因。对于一些走路来锻炼的人，降公交费加停车费并不会使得他们选择坐公交。
2 因果关系简单化降低公交费用加停车费是唯一的解决办法？改变不合理的公交路线，提高公交服务质量呢？
3 非此即彼的错误

求nn点评。。。

作者: GYF 时间: 2011-7-21 09:07
标题: 我是新手——AA28是我写的第一篇Argument，麻烦各位高手点评！狂轰乱炸我不怕！

The argument recommends that reducing shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations can increase the commuter use of the shuttle buses. To justify the claim, the author points out that the commuter use of the shuttle buses, transporting people to the subway stations, is not compared with that of the new subway train. In addition, the author argues that driving to the subway station resulted in that the commuter use of the shuttle buses is below the projected volume. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logic flaws.

To begin with, the author assumes that reducing the shuttle bus fares and increasing the price of parking at subway station are exclusive alternatives. However ,the author presents a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice. The author overlooks the possibility that the shuttle bus fares are originally not so high and it would be reduced a little, thus would not thoroughly affect the commuters to drive there. Moreover, the same may be true of parking at the subway stations. Also, we can easily provide better results by designing a new shorter routine only for shuttle buses which can save time thus spending less time than to drive to the stations.

In addition, the author's line of reasoning is that driving to the station caused the result that commuter use of the shuttle buses is below the projected volume. While self-driving might be the important contributing factor to the result, but it's not the only such factor. All other prospective causes might bring about the same result. For example, the health conditions of the shuttle buses might not take the comfortable feelings and the shuttle buses might not have enough seats, thus making some people no seats to have a rest. As the reasons stand, the author's assumption might not be thoroughly worthy of consideration.

The last but not the least ,the author also assumes that reducing the shuttle bus fares and increasing the price of parking at subway station are only solutions to the problem. However, the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification .other measures to the problem such as propagating that automobile contributes to the pollution and riding shuttle bus more safer than self-driving. Without evidences that can rule out such solutions ,the author's recommendation cannot be totally accepted.

In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the argument's recommendation, the author would have to demonstrate that no other prospective solutions can work out the problem .Additionally, the author would have to show that the exclusive alternatives can achieve the company's expectation that commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there.

作者: GYF 时间: 2011-7-21 09:30
标题: 关于driving问题
关于这点，我认为作者有这样一个假设;因为大多数人driving，所以导致了坐shuttle bus的人少了。所以我认为这个应该是causally oversimplify的错误。

作者: GYF 时间: 2011-7-21 09:35
不好意思，我是19楼的，刚才发的帖子回的是6和8楼同学的。

作者: casperbunny 时间: 2011-7-28 23:12
我第一次写时，写了很多，感觉话很多，
1通勤者乘车数量的减少，原因很多，而不是自驾车的人多了
A 无因果推断：偏重于反驳自驾车多和其无直接关系
B 他因有什么：这递进地说，先说大概率比如服务，再说小概率，比如公车站与区民区相距甚远，这点更能造成人们不做车
2either or的反驳，这时反驳的是2选方法无法解决问题，
A.parking pee和riding charge的方式不对
B加起来效果好
c 其他方法有什么

就这样，写得不好，仅供参考

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)