- UID
- 538709
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-6-8
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
新手，发现CD 真的好有帮助，自己也练了一篇每人写过的，欢迎大家点评！
AA 36
Professor Taylor of Jones University is promoting a model of foreign language instruction in which students receive ten weeks of intensive training, then go abroad to live with families for ten weeks. The superiority of the model, Professor Taylor contends, is proved by the results of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only ten to twenty weeks in the program than do nine out of ten foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation.
The article is promoting a model of foreign language instruction by Professor Taylor of Jones University, arguing the model’s superiority based the result of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do nine out of ten foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation. At first glance, it seems that the argument is acceptable. However, careful review reveals that the argument bears several fallacies.
In the first place, the argument made a common mistake of relying on a questionable study. We are only told the result of the study. Who designed the study? How was the study conducted? What was the sample? These are all critical factors to be addressed. Without such information, we cannot conclude whether the test can truly reveal one’s language ability or not. For example, the test may only cover spoken English while the one’s vocabulary base remains untouched. In this case, the test is not comprehensive and thus not reliable.
Moreover, the word “fluently” is vague. Language ability is more than fluency. Criteria such as accuracy need to be considered as well. Also, the sample of the study is not mentioned. If the other colleges are the ones offer poor education, then the superiority of the model cannot be justified.
Finally, Even if the test result is valid, the argument is still defective. The argument assumed that the model of instruction was the only thing that influences one’s language ability. There is no sufficient ground for people to believe this assumption. The conclusion is too hasty as the article did not mention other factors that might yield the same result. For example, it is possible that students at Jones University studied harder than those of other universities. Hence, even if the test result is valid, the mere correlation between the test result and the language model cannot justify the causal relationship between them. To establish a convincing causal relationship, other factors must be considered and ruled out.
To conclude, the promotion is not persuasive as the argument underlying is not reasonable. To substantiate it, the article must provide enough information to prove the validity of the study and offer concrete evidence to show the causal relationship between the study and language ability. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-6-13 09:57:51
收藏
收藏
