[原创]7/21/06 test day 刚收到成绩AWA 6.0 分享点小经验

其实这个成绩也是意料之中...我自己估计自己运气差点打了错别字的话就是5.0~5.5， 运气好点没犯啥语法错误就6.0 ----- 因为写作一直是我的强项。。。虽然我最后考试前一个星期才复习， 并且犯懒才练了AA AI 各一篇。。。

以下是我的一些小经验， 也许对你有帮助吧（对底子好的人有帮助。。。我不敢误导人。。。）

1) TEMPLET 要准备， 但是千万不要迷信TEMPLET。 能写的人尽量多写点自己的东西， 不要用用烂的OLD STUFF。 TEMPLET 最重要的是开头和结尾， 一定要准备要， 但是中间三段， 我本人是用了FIRST， SECOND， LAST， 在TEMPLET上， 其他都现场自己根据TOPIC写的。

2) 我练的不多， 只练了各一篇， 但是我看的不少。 看了不少别人写的好文， 体会6分的文章应该是怎么样的， 衡量自己的水平是否在他们6分这个档次， 在根据自己情况复习。（我当时觉得别人的6分也就是我能写出来的水平， 所以没有那种MOTIVATION 练。。。所以练的少了。。。）

3) TEMPLET 也要多看一些（我看了有20个之多。。。）， 主要是了解TEMPLET 是怎么做出来的， 是派什么用的。 我刚开始就挺迷茫的想不就写个文章吗。。。写贝。。。搞什么模版啊。。。后来看了AWA SCORE 800和别人的TEMPLET才慢慢了解了， 然后才开始做自己的T。。。TEMPLET不要完全用一家的， 要博采众家之长， 揉和自己的一点东西， 做个自己的T。 完全照抄的东西， 你用起来肯定束手束脚， 套起来也不顺，到头来运气好得个好分， 运气差的回过头来骂TEMPLET。。。

4) 要准备AWA 的专门用的词汇。 不多， 最多也就50个。 因为AWA确实有CRACK它的方法， 比如用E RATER 喜欢的一些写评论文的词汇啊。。。比如 critical flaw, fallacy, unwarranted, groundless, well-grounded, solid, proposal, controversial, diverse, substantiate, illustrate, convince, assertion, strengthen, virtually, gratuitous, scenarios, questionable assumption, reveal, reflection, sufficient, justification, validity, alternatives, demonstrate, etc.

5) 另外， E-RATER 还特别喜欢 你用什么 therefore, furthermore, thus, hence, in addition, on the other hand, 来衡量你的思路是否清楚。。。这个是我看了关于AWA的资料摸索出来的道理。另外， 不要用太绝对的语气， 对自己的建议观点推测要用什么 it is likely, it is quite possible... may..perhaps来表达你的观点不极端。

6) 老生常谈， 字要多写点， 写五段， 开头结尾， 中间三。考试时候可以先打好开头， 中间写不出来了， 顺便打好结尾， 在打中间， 这样一来就算你时间最后不够， 开头结尾还是完整的可以减少被发现的机会：P 我两个文章最后都都了50秒检查。。。哈哈

下面是我唯一练的两篇文章， 考试时候的TEMPLET我是修改过的， 因为这个练是我想熟悉一下AWA， T还没确定呢。。。不过， 我没有要求自己100% STRICT TO TEMPLET。 我给我自己足够的灵活性， 允许自己现场看题目发挥， TEMPLET给了我一个很好的框架， 搭好了文章架子， 你太在意架子而不在意里面的内容有时候反而会有反效果并限制了自己的思维。

我有个朋友就是， 她说她最后觉的TEMPLET 太复杂了把她搞晕了， 她不用了（开头结尾用了一点）， 她跟我同一天考， AWA也6。。。

用了个网上很流行的TEMPLET练， 后来发现这个T用的人太多， 我改动了较多。。。

AI

13. “Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government.”

The issue of whether individual person or government should be responsible for the preservation of the natural environment is complex and controversial by nature that people of different background and experience may hold diverse views. In my point of view, I more favor the idea that we, as an individual in the society, should be responsible ultimately for preserving the natural environment. However, I also understand that there is no clear-cut opinion on the issue and that some people may conceive a different standpoint. My view will be well substantiated by the following reasoning and analysis.

First, a healthy, well-balanced natural environment is essential for a comfortable living of an individual. If the air is polluted and the rivers are contaminated, an individual living on the globe with no fresh air and clean water definitely will have trouble to live a healthy and pleasant life. Therefore, it is wise for an individual to cherish the environment he lives in for his own benefit.

 Second, we all well understand that there is only one earth, and that the natural resources are limited. Some individuals may think that the damage an individual can do to our natural environment can not be very serious, since the natural resources are so abundant, to an individual. However, the damage can be enormous, if every individual on the earth, commits some “small” damage independently. To illustrate, you may imagine a picture that an individual, who considers his action not a serious harm to natural environment, cuts down a tree in order to build up a fence around his house. What would one tree matter? Anyhow there are some millions and millions of trees on this earth. However, what about if every individual thinks in this philosophy and decides to cut down one tree? There are 6.3 billion people on this planet today and the 6.3 billion individuals can make our planet barren!

 Second, we all well understand that there is only one earth, and that the natural resources are limited. Some individuals may think that the damage an individual can do to our natural environment can not be very serious, since the natural resources are so abundant, to an individual. However, the damage can be enormous, if every individual on the earth, commits some “small” damage independently. To illustrate, you may imagine a picture that an individual, who considers his action not a serious harm to natural environment, cuts down a tree in order to build up a fence around his house. What would one tree matter? Anyhow there are some millions and millions of trees on this earth. However, what about if every individual thinks in this philosophy and decides to cut down one tree? There are 6.3 billion people on this planet today and the 6.3 billion individuals can make our planet barren!

Admittedly, I agree that government effort plays a great role in the preservation of our natural environment, especially when joint government efforts are called for internationally. However, as to my understanding, government helps to regulate the way in which we can do with our environment. It acts more like an instructional guideline. But it is virtually an individual who can regulate what he himself should do. It is possible that government creates great rules for preserving the natural environment, but every individual just ignores that rule and acts on his own. Furthermore, only when an individual accepts from heart as his own responsibility to preserve the natural environment, but not just be imposed by law to do so, can he virtually act in all aspects spontaneously to preserve the environment.

In summary, my view that every individual is ultimately responsible for the preservation of the natural environment is well-grounded for above discussed reasons, while I don’t deny that government also plays an important role in this long-run.

(482 words)

用了个网上很流行的TEMPLET练， 后来发现这个T用的人太多， 我改动了较多。。。

The following appeared as part of a plan proposed by an executive of the Easy Credit Company to the president.

“The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if we were to donate a portion of the proceeds from the use of our cards to a well-known environmental organization in exchange for the use of its symbol or logo on our card. Since a recent poll shows that a large percentage of the public is concerned about environmental issues, this policy would attract new customers, increase use among existing customers, and enable us to charge interest rates that are higher than the lowest ones available.”

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Easy Credit Company can gain a competitive advantage over its rivals by using symbol or logo of famous environmental organization on its credit card. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites that a recent poll indicates that a large portion of the public is concerned about environmental issues. In addition, he assumes that this policy will bring new customers, increase frequency of usage by existing customers, and entail the company a higher interest rates from its customers. At first glance, the argument appears somehow plausible. However, a reflection on the reasoning of the argument will reveal that it in fact suffers from several logic flaws as I analyze below.

First, the arguer imprudently comes to the conclusion that the company can gain a competitive advantage by adopting the proposal without considering the possibility that its rivals may have already begun to do so. If this is the case, the Easy Credit Company does not initiate the policy, but appears that it follows what its rivals have accomplished. Therefore, the EC company can gain no competitive advantage by just following what others do.

Second, the arguer cites as evidence that the favorable result of a recent poll is sufficient enough for the company to consider a responsive action. However, the arguer fails to address specific information carried by the survey. There is no information about how many people took part in the survey, nor about the exact portion of those who responded. In addition, the arguer fails to establish a direct relationship between the survey result with the policy he recommends: it is likely that people who are concerned about environmental issues don’t view the bearing of symbol or logo of a famous environmental organization as the company’s intention to protect environment. Therefore, without further information collected about the poll, the proposal based on information from the survey, is not sound-grounded. 

Finally, even if the above two factors don’t matter, it is still unthoughtful to conclude that the adoption of the policy can bring new customers and increase profit for the company. It is possible that people who expressed concern about environment issues in the survey are those who don’t want to use credit card, or even oppose to the usage, because they may possibly view credit card itself as not environment-friendly since credit card expires in some years and a new one will be produced after the expiration, with the material plastic that is not easily dissolve in natural environment.

To sum up, since the arguer commits the above mentioned logic mistakes and fails to support his proposal with more detailed and specific information, his conclusion is thus unwarranted. He can evaluate the possibility of success of the proposal by providing its rivals’ marketing measures, reviewing the relationship between the survey and the proposal, and clarifying the survey target group’s detailed information and intention.

(479 words)

感谢Robin MM～～～

3q

又一牛人

UP!