第一篇习作，argument 1，求狠拍~

byhdhr123 · 发表于 2012-11-4 10:59:11

In the argument,the author drews out the conclusion that the co-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.To support his conclusion,the author turns to a discovery that the basket has been found across the Brim River,which is deep and broad and no boat has been found yet so the basket can not be taken form one side to the other.The conclusion seems logical and persuasive at first glance,but because of lack of some specific evidences,the validity of the argument has been weakened.Unless the speaker can provide us with more information,simply drewing out such a conclusion is not so solid.
First,the author says the river is deep and broad so the Paleans can not cross the river.But the suthor do not metion that the situation is now or many year ago when Palean village still exist.Because we know that the property of a river might change a lot during the history,if the river now is deep and broad,we can't simply say that the river is deep and broad all the time.Many factors such as historical events may affect the river,such as a project to change its path,thus the flow of the river may change a lot because of the different in the climate;or a project to get more tributaries into the river,it will make the river more broad and rapid.other things other than historical events can play a great role in the change,too.If the climate at a time changed ripidly,the area gets more rains than before,it would affect the river a lot,too.So the author must provide more information to confirm that the river's property dosesn't change much during so many years to strength his conclusion.

However,even if the river's property doesn't change that much and in the ancident time the river is deep and cross,It is still not clear that people can't get acorss the river except by boat.Because lack of some specific evidence such as the climate in the area,or more about the situation of the river.There exist a posibility that in the winter,the river will get forzen so people on the other side of the river can get acorss the river only by their feet.Or the river is not long enough that people could go around it and get to their destination on the other side.So only suggest that the river is deep and board may not be convincing enough to claim that getting acorss the river is an imposible thing for people to do.

In addition,the arguer suggests that no boat has been found so people can not go cross the river.However,it is not the case.Simply suggesting not boats can not be a convincing evidence that confrim that there's no boats exist for we hasn't found them yet but the remains of boats exist somewhere in the earth.Even if there are true no remains found in the area,perhaps the boat is made of wood so they were prone to decaying so no remains can be found,still,we can not conculde that no boat existed at that time so using boat to cross the river is not imposible.

To sum up,The seemingly logical argument is not as solid as it stands.many specific evidences is omitted or ignored by the author.So to strengthen the argument and achieve the goal of the argument,the arguer must rely on more information,and provides more about the property of the river,climate of the area and the boat.Only if these is presented can the argument be more convincing.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-4 16:07:37

In the argument, the author draws out theconclusion that the co-called Palean baskets were not uniquelyPalean. To support his conclusion, the author turns to a discovery that thebasket has been found across the Brim River, which is deep and broad， and no boathas been found yet so the basket can not be taken form one side to the other. Theconclusion seems logical and persuasive at first glance, but because of lack ofsome specific evidences, the validity of the argument has been weakened. Unlessthe speaker can provide us with more information, simply drawing out such aconclusion is not so solid.
First, the author says the river is deep and broad so the Paleans can notcross the river. But the author does not mention that the situation isnow or many years ago when Palean village already existed. Because weknow that （不要用这种句式，在argu里面这么写就感觉是引入了自己对argu的认知，而不是推理）the propertyof a river might change a lot during the history, if the river now isdeep and broad, we can't simply say that the river is deep and broad all thetime. Many factors such as historical events may affect the river, such as aproject to change its path, thus the flow of the river may change a lot becauseof the difference in the climate; or a project to get more tributaries into theriver, and it will make the river more broad and rapid. Other things other thanhistorical events can play a great role in the change, too. If the climate at atime changed rapidly, the area gets more rains than before; it would affect theriver a lot, too.这里其实不必找这么多的其他可能性的，一个足以，然后说清楚是怎么推理的，比如由于气候变化，在古代，该地区天气干燥，雨水很少，现在是河的地方以前很可能是一个峡谷或者是小溪，而后来雨水增多聚集，使得变成了宽而大的河，因此为了证明这条河在古代也是存在的并且有着差不多的宽度和深度，必须给与更多的考古资料和气候证据。后面两段也应如此。 Sothe author must provide more information to confirm that the river's property doesn’t change muchduring so many years to strength his conclusion.

However,even if the river's property doesn't change that much and in the ancient time theriver is deep and cross, It is still not clear that people can't get across the riverexcept by boat. Because lack of some specific evidence such as the climate inthe area, or more about the situation of the river. There exist a possibility that in the winter,the river will get frozen so people on the other side of the river can get across the riveronlyon foot. Or the river is not long enough that people could go around itand get to their destination on the other side. So only suggest that the riveris deep and board may not be convincing enough to claim that getting across the river isan impossible thing forpeople to do.

Inaddition, the arguer suggests that no boat has been found so people can not gocross the river. However, it is not the case. Simply suggesting not boats cannot be a convincing evidence that confirm that there's no boatsexist for we hasn't found them yet but the remains of boats exist somewhere inthe earth. Even if there are true no remains found in the area, perhaps theboat is made of wood so they were prone to decaying so no remains can be found,still, we can not conclude that no boat existed at that time so using boatto cross the river is not impossible.
建议你的第二三点调换位置，先说是否必然没船，然后再说即使没船，也可能有其他的过河方式。
Tosum up, The seemingly logical argument is not as solid as it stands. manyspecific evidences is omitted or ignored by the author. So to strengthen theargument and achieve the goal of the argument, the arguer must rely on more information,and provides more about the property of the river, climate of the area and the boat.Only if these are presented can the argument be more convincing.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-4 16:08:24

绿色部分是存疑的，LZ看看是否有问题，红色是错了地方已经改过来，LZ加油，坚持写

byhdhr123 · 发表于 2012-11-4 22:58:28

版主，这玩意怎么练啊~感觉毫无头绪啊。写多少为好啊?还有听说AW不重要是真的吗？(我是理工科)

byhdhr123 · 发表于 2012-11-4 23:00:03

绿色部分是存疑的，LZ看看是否有问题，红色是错了地方已经改过来，LZ加油，坚持写

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-5 00:01:07

重要性在G里面也许不高，但在申请的时候写文书很有帮助，所以能写好就好些吧，至少不能低于三分吧

[作文互改] 第一篇习作，argument 1，求狠拍~

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()