ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 5696|回复: 7
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[作文] A31,投钱和教育,望拍

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-10-7 11:28:22 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
这篇总体比较满意,无论是篇幅还是论点,估计去考试时应该也不会有大的改动,希望大家踊跃提出自己的意见。
提纲:
1.相同的居民数量不等于相同的学生数量。
2.投钱多不代表投的钱在总收入中占的比较就大。
3.居民的意见可能和政府不一致,投钱和重视教育不一定相关。


Argument
新G题号:
31题目:
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper. In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."
写作要求:Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
老GRE对应题号:214


This argument is well presented but far-fetched. It lays a claim that Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do. The argument is in effect definitely impractical due to several flaws after a close scrutiny, albeit it may appear plausible at a cursory glance.
First off, a threshold problem comes into being in this argument that the author clearly assumes larger proportion of revenues on education with same number of people means bigger concentration on education. However, this contention is open to a number of interpretations. We would never know if the same amount of residents would not necessarily result in proportional number of students. In this light, Blue city may have spent more on average since the number of students in Parson City might be, say, more than twice than that in Blue City. Thus, without accounting for and ruling out other likely scenarios, by no means could the author conclude that the students in Parson City receive more revenues in on average.
Moreover, even though the author might be able to provide evidence for us to deduce a solution to the problem presented above afterwards, the argument still maintains ill-conceived owing to another problem. It’s totally possible that the gross revenue of Parson City is more than 2 times as those of Blue City. In this case, the amount of money in Blue City certainly occupies larger proportion. To corroborate his point, the author should pay a close heed to as well as cope with the representative alternatives, such as the amount of revenue both cities earn every year, at least. Only then could he bolster the conclusion.
Finally, even if the foregoing problems might turn out to be solved by ensuing evidence, a crucial problem remains that is the more money invested in education meaning the higher value on providing education? It’s reasonable to cast doubts upon the author’s presumption which I reject as inadequate. For instance, the author omits to inform us about the attitude of the residents in both cities. Perhaps they regard money as a means of policy but not a really effective way to improve the quality of education. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it proves to be the author’s responsibility to mull over his provisos so as to pave the way for a more tenable argument.
In retrospect, the author seems precipitous to jump to the conclusion based on a series of problematic assumptions pertaining to the residents’ attitude, the amount of revenues in both cities, as well as the proportion of students among residents. To dismiss the specter of implausibility in this argument, the author ought to come to grips with the problems mentioned above: (1) the proportion of students are the same in both cities; (2) the amounts of revenues are congruent in both cities; (3) and the residents’ attitudes are like the governments, which regard the amount of money as a criterion of the emphasis on education. Only by grasping the gist of sound assumptions could the author draw a convincible conclusion. After all, feckless attempts with a fallible method could be nothing but a fool’s errand.
530words,28min
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2011-10-7 21:37:29 | 只看该作者
对比之前你的A,理解你说的模版的意思了,配上你娴熟漂亮的语句,相得益彰啊!
关于第二个观点有点小疑惑:“the gross revenue of Parson City is more than 2 times as those of Blue City......the amount of money in Blue City certainly occupies larger proportion.” 文中说两个城市投资”both as a proportion.....and in absolute terms”,是否有点小出入?
第三点的话,我觉得还有可以扩展一点,比如城市教育基础不同(B名校云集,资本雄厚;P学校伶仃,设施残破),投入方式就不同:B城市可以邀请到NB学者教授每年来游学,或者调动了其他资源,因此光看钱投入多少很偏颇~
一点拙见~:-)
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-10-7 22:14:00 | 只看该作者
第二点我仔细的看了一下,果然是我写错了,这下错的大了,幸亏你的及时指正啊。第三点敢不敢再给力一点啊~~你这思维太有深度了~
地板
发表于 2011-10-7 22:42:30 | 只看该作者
关于第三点~ 其实我想主要是比较两个城市教育资源的差异,因而归纳出不具有可比性,在讨论城市教育基础差异时,引出另外一个问题:投入教育的方法不同~
另外可以考虑的是两个城市之间的差异,像你在第一点里谈的,比如B城市适合养老,住的都是老人,孩子很少,上学的需求就少,因此需要建立的教学机构设施的需求就少,而P万一是一个年轻人喜欢生孩子成家立业的地方,可能教育需求量就不是一个基数的,因此进一步导致了两个城市做比较不可比~
最后,我在写这篇的时候,还稍微challenge了一下资金来源的问题,尽管说这个洲大部分城市的公立学校都是政府税收出资,不过也不能排除个例,也许B城市学校的融资渠道还有本地富翁捐款,因此减轻了政府压力,所以即使政府出钱少,也不能说明这个城市不重视教育~
5#
发表于 2011-10-7 22:47:38 | 只看该作者
也许还可以说 政府出资供养孩子,想加拿大那样的制度,因此政府对于教育的投入可能主要集中在对孩子的直接投资,而不在于对学校的建设,因此不能仅仅看学校没有拿到很多钱,就认为这个城市不重视教育~
6#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-10-7 23:06:20 | 只看该作者
对对,资金来源也是一个很好的拓展方面~~制度问题。。你这么一说感觉攻击点真多啊~~
7#
发表于 2011-10-7 23:20:45 | 只看该作者
re
8#
发表于 2011-11-27 21:40:08 | 只看该作者
"both as a proportion.....and in absolute terms”, 请问这句话翻译成中文应该是什么意思?我感觉这句话严重影响了我对于这一点的理解和攻击。网上的版本是“依据总体税收比率及相关政策来看”,请问对吗?这一点应该怎么攻击?谢谢回复和解答!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-1-23 15:00
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部