Argument 65 求评价

苍穹子 · 发表于 2013-3-9 06:33:00

[65] When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used public park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed the park's drop in popularity: the recordings showed an average of only 50 cars per day. In contrast, tiny Carlton Park in the heart of the business district is visited by more than 150 people on a typical weekday. An obvious difference is that Carlton Park, unlike Stanley Park, provides ample seating. Thus, if Stanley Park is ever to be as popular with our citizens as Carlton Park, the town will obviously need to provide more benches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable for socializing. [Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.]
In this argument, the speaker suggests that in order to attract more people, the Stanley part should provide more benches like the carlton part. To support this argument, the speaker first points out that the number of people visited the part last month is decreasing by giving the evidence that the number of car park is dropping according to the camera. Furthermore, he also puts forward a fact that another part, the carlton park, is more popular than the Stanley part and concludes that the popularity of the calrton park is due to the large number of benches it provides. Although this argument seems reasonable at the first glance, a close scrutinizes reveals that it is logically fault in several critical respects.
To begin with, the speakers claim that the actually people visiting the park is decreasing is based on unfounded and unconveniencing facts. First, the speaker did not provide any information about the display and the number of the camera. It is entirely possible that the number of the cameras may not be enough to cover all the parking lots thus the popularity of park may not be accurate. Second, even if the figure can represent the popularity of park last month, it is insufficient for the speaker to predict the trends of the number of visitors in the future. Since the speaker did not provide other information, it is entirely possible that last month may have some special accidences such as a heavy snow which prevent visitor from coming to the park. Finally, even if the figure of the car park does represent the trends in the future, the speakers still need other information to support his assertion because he did not rule out the possibility that most of the people may go to this part by public transport not by car. If the speaker can not provide this information mentioned above, the claims will be unfounded.
Secondly, the figures provided by the speaker can not show that the calrton part is more popular than the Stanley Park in general. Since the calrton park stands in the heart of the business district, is the possible that the number of visitors in the weekdays is much higher than the number of visitors is the weekends because there are more people working in this district in the weekdays and they may go to the park during their lunch break. In that case the annual number of visitors in the Stanley park may be higher than that of the carlton park. Even if the speaker can provide information to support his assumption that the carlton park is more popular, he still can not come to the conclusion that it’s popularity is due to the ample benches just because it is an obviously difference between two parks. Another reason may be the difference in locations which the speaker has also mentioned but did not dig it further.
Finally, even if the speaker can provide sufficient and sounded evidences to prove that the popularity of the carlton park is due to the ample benches, the speakers’ claim still relies on the dubious assumption that the same taking the same methods will bring the same effects to the Stanley park. Actually there are may be several differences between these two parks which make this analogy impossible. For example, the Stanley Park may be a sport park which did not necessary needs many benches. Another difference may be that the traffic near this park is much less convenience than that of the carlton park so that before providing more benches, the town needs to improve the road conditions or the public transportation near the park.
In sum, because this argument is mostly based on dubious evidence and unfounded assumptions, the speaker can not successfully convinced people in the town that they need to provide more benches to make the Stanley Park more popular. In order to make his assertion more convincing, the speaker need to provide more informatiom mentinoed above.
大概写了45分钟，考试的时候应该写不了那么长。版主帮忙看一下能否达到4分的要求，谢了。

苍穹子 · 发表于 2013-3-9 06:33:30

自顶

竹林中人 · 发表于 2013-3-9 23:50:04

1.没有根据instruction来写，这要打折扣。这篇需要分析题目中存在的假设或者前提
2.It is entirely possible that the number of the cameras may not be enough to cover all the parking lots thus the popularity of park may not be accurate像这样的一些地方，我建议你能更具体的说下，比如may not be accurate 会到底怎么样，怎么样才accurate
3.模板的痕迹很重，希望多些变化

苍穹子 · 发表于 2013-3-10 03:59:06

也即是说写argument时虽然能找到尽量多的逻辑错误但结构只是硬套模板也是拿不到高分（>=4）的是么？

苍穹子 · 发表于 2013-3-10 04:07:27

其实我写这篇文章是没怎么借用模板的。之所以看起来像是照模板写成的可能是由于本人能想到的句式太过贫乏的缘故。
谢谢你的提醒，我以后会在句式多样性上加强的~

竹林中人 · 发表于 2013-3-10 12:22:56

也即是说写argument时虽然能找到尽量多的逻辑错误但结构只是硬套模板也是拿不到高分（>=4）的是么？

-- by 会员苍穹子 (2013/3/10 3:59:06)

是的，错误其实很容易找的，关键在于你的推理。

[argument] Argument 65 求评价

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块