9.28考试，这才是第5篇AA，花了45分钟，害怕到时打不完阿，帮我改改好吗？
A14. The following appeared in a memo from the president of the Meltaway Company, a producer of ice cream.
“Health concerns and convenience appear to be the key factors affecting sales of ice cream. Last year’s publication of research suggesting that some types of fat can be beneficial to health must have made people more willing to eat regular ice cream, which contains fat. Over the past year, national sales of regular ice cream increased about 8 percent, while sales of fat-free or lowfat ice cream increased by only 1 percent. During the same time period, sales of ice cream were similarly affected by consumers’ demand for convenience, as grocery stores increased their sales volume for ice cream by 9 percent, compared to a 3 percent increase for ice-cream parlors and other stores specializing in ice cream. Therefore, we can expect that most of our profits over the next few years will come from providing regular ice cream to grocery stores.”
According to the article, the author predicate that most of the profit of Meltaway Company(MC) will come from providing regular ice cream to grocery stores. To buttress his assumption, he provide the data showing in the last year sales of regular ice cream increased by 8%while that of lowfat one is 1%. Addition, he also generate the assumption that convenience is important to sales based on the fact that sales increase in grocery stores was 9% compared with 3% in parlors and other specialized stores. At the first glance the argument seems somehow appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. At least four fallacies are embedded in it.
First of all, the statistic data cited in the article to corroborate the predication are vague and oversimplified, and thus may distort the overall picture. For instance, the fat-free or lowfat ice cream always has a smaller increase in sales than regular one and in the previous years the difference was much bigger than 7% presented last year. Just slightly change the angle of viewpoint, the identical data could present a different meaning. Lacking of a standard gauge render this argument open to aggression.
In addition, the author postulates that all the background situation will remain stable in the future which is questionable. The consumers' attitudes are always changing thus pendulant the demand market. It's ungrounded to assume in the future customers will still hold the same consumption habits as they do now.
Furthermore, the author commits the fallacy of "casual oversimplification" in assuming that last year's publication of research which in favor of regular ice cream is the sole reason behind the sales increase of it. However, it's not necessary the case. It's entirely possible that the fast increase of regular ice-cream attributes to the price reduction of it not the research result. The author's failure to investigate or even consider the other explanations for the faster increase renders the predication generalized highly suspect.
Even if all the above are granted to be true, the argument is still gratuitous. The predication depends on the assumption that there is no alternative means to achieve a better goal. Yet no evidence is offered in the article to buttress the assumption. It's entirely possible the synergy of regular ice cream and supermarket can achieve the best result. Without considering and ruling out other alternative means, the author can not confidently reach the predication.
To sum up, whether the predication will come true is questionable. Failing to consider the whole situation comprehensively jeopardizes the argument substantially thus leave it open to question. To make it logically accepted, the author should provided more concrete and detailed evidence to rule out the vulnerable ambiguities embedded in the article.
According to the article, the author predicate that most of the profit of Meltaway Company(MC) will come from providing regular ice cream to grocery stores. To buttress his assumption, he provide the data showing in the last year sales of regular ice cream increased by 8%while that of lowfat one is 1%. Addition, he also generate the assumption that convenience is important to sales based on the fact that sales increase in grocery stores was 9% compared with 3% in parlors and other specialized stores. At the first glance the argument seems somehow appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. At least four fallacies are embedded in it.
楼主第一段当中，有个共性的小毛病：the author predicate/ he provide/ he also generate， 貌似the author 是个第三人称单数，所以注意一下动词时态啦。
First of all, the statistic data cited in the article to corroborate the predication are vague and oversimplified, and thus may distort the overall picture. For instance, the fat-free or lowfat ice cream always has a smaller increase in sales than regular one and in the previous years the difference was much bigger than 7% presented last year. Just slightly change the angle of viewpoint, the identical data could present a different meaning. Lacking of a standard gauge render this argument open to aggression.
In addition, the author postulates that all the background situation will remain stable in the future which is questionable. The consumers' attitudes are always changing thus pendulant the demand market. It's ungrounded to assume in the future customers will still hold the same consumption habits as they do now.
Furthermore, the author commits the fallacy of "casual oversimplification" in assuming that last year's publication of research which in favor of regular ice cream is the sole reason behind the sales increase of it. However, it's not necessary the case. It's entirely possible that the fast increase of regular ice-cream attributes to the price reduction of it not the research result. The author's failure to investigate or even consider the other explanations for the faster increase renders the predication generalized highly suspect.
Even if all the above are granted to be true, the argument is still gratuitous. The predication depends on the assumption that there is no alternative means to achieve a better goal. Yet no evidence is offered in the article to buttress the assumption. It's entirely possible the synergy of regular ice cream and supermarket can achieve the best result. Without considering and ruling out other alternative means, the author can not confidently reach the predication.
To sum up, whether the predication will come true is questionable. Failing to consider the whole situation comprehensively jeopardizes the argument substantially thus leave it open to question. To make it logically accepted, the author should provided more concrete and detailed evidence to rule out the vulnerable ambiguities embedded in the article.
和issue一样，楼主的水平还是十分厉害的，关键就是在规定时间内写出来，这篇文章你提了四个逻辑点，可能时间是比较急了，觉得其中一个次重要的论点，可以简略讲述。
既然楼主已经写了五篇文章，那可以试试掐时间写文章。觉得楼主可以渐渐形成自己模版，然后考试的时候就用这样的模版，同时填充式的方法写文章也是加快速度的一种好方法。同时平时多连连打字。楼主不要急啊，慢慢来，一步步，不要因为考试时间快到了就紧张啊！！！加油啊（呵呵，搞不懂自己什么时候能够这么理性的分析问题了！嘿！）
在这种时候的关怀真是雪中送炭，感激涕零ing~~~~~~~偶觉得文章似乎有点长了，已经接近600词了。除非有相当的把握，否则还是控制在450-500词为佳，仅供参考咯。
如果能在30分钟内打完~当然越长越好~嘻嘻~原来tony还写过700多字的文章呢~~汗！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |