Argument三篇疑惑

一方通行 · 发表于 2011-10-28 19:34:40

Argument三篇疑惑
下周杀鸡！现在把ARGU过完了，发现有三个找点不是很确定，希望大家指出问题
The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
"Two years ago the city voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for the litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has only been a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
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.

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper.
"Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this claim is undermined by a recent report on the Elthyrian economy, which found that since 1999 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, bringing the unemployment rate in Elthyria to its lowest level in decades. Moreover, two-thirds of these newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time."
*Downsizing is the process whereby corporations deliberately make themselves smaller, reducing the number of their employees.
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.

最后就是想问问文章的中心句在那里，有时感觉很多句都可以

"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked with a number of dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. In a demonstration of their continuing commitment to quality, Appian Roadways recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. Therefore, I recommend hiring Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls. I predict that our Appian access roads will not have to be repaired for at least four years." 这里是最后一句还是最后两句和在一起的中心？求问
差不多就这些了，求各位CDer 多多提点意见！

snowmelt · 发表于 2011-10-28 22:40:20

第一篇，我刚写了一下发到另一个帖子里。
1. 不能证明禁止滑板就是visitor少的原因，很多其他原因
2. 滑板对Monroe Park的作用未说明。没有证据显示滑板是没有litter vandalism的原因；即使是，也没有说明Monroe Park能吸引足够多游客。
3. 不能得出“回到从前”的结论。由于人口减少，交通不便，公园增多等原因。

ppguo · 发表于 2011-10-29 02:37:57

最后一个argument, 其实没有所谓中心句，或者说每句都是中心句。前后的逻辑关系很紧密。

冷月钟笛 · 发表于 2011-10-29 23:15:34

修路问题：

我的思路
1. Route 101 and Route 40是否可类比——路况差异；
2. 新设备人才是否代表更强？（没对比，不确定——两方面）
3. 新修路是否情况一致~ 如何保证4年~

冷月钟笛 · 发表于 2011-10-29 23:31:12

第一篇A171是A3的加强版~
看了一遍大概思路如下：
1. 游人不多与垃圾依旧说明问题仍然存在，不能说明滑板者对于制造垃圾、破坏、降低游人没用责任；
2. 另外一个公园的成功可能是其他原因，与滑板没关系——管理、环境等；
3. 即使接触禁令，也不一定能恢复期望的繁华——垃圾、破坏、游人少没有得到实质性解决~

冷月钟笛 · 发表于 2011-10-29 23:32:32

旱冰鞋问题：
证明：穿护具可以大量减少重伤几率
我觉得这里的问题在于：作者认为穿不穿护具是受重伤与否的唯一条件，甚至是充要条件
具体问题我觉得有以下几点：
1. 急诊室出伤率75%不穿护具与25%穿护具的对比不能说明护具减少重伤率的结论：
有可能不穿护具的人都是熟练高手，即使受伤也能把伤害降低，因此他们受的都是轻伤；而穿护具的人可能技术并不成熟，一味依赖护具而有恃无恐，因而受重伤采取急诊室就医~ 在这种情况下，75%无法说明护具对severely injured in an accident的作用有多大；
2. 除了技术原因外，作者还忽略了出意外的外界因素（比如地点）：
即使75%的数据make sense，文中提到这些受伤的人都是在street和parking lots受的伤，街上和停车场可能车来车往，可能有一定的倾斜度，还可能有各种障碍物（马路牙子等等），这都为意外出险构成了威胁。因此不能得出穿了护具就万事大吉的结论，危言耸听一点的说，也许那些穿护具但是技术不好的人在街上滑可能直接就被撞死，进太平间了，因此没机会去急诊室。
3. 还可以质疑一下75%的数据是否具有代表性。

这个argument给的信息好少，可以展开的地方也不是很多，不过逻辑上的错误很明显：
从75%的数据最多可以推论出 “少出意外，则穿了护具”，但没办法充分推论出“只要穿了护具，意外就会大量减少”的结论，更没办法仓促推广到“只要穿了护具，重伤意外就会大量减少”的结论。
因此，我认为这个argument主要可以在“作者认为穿护具是重伤与否的唯一前提”这个假设下讨论~

[作文] Argument三篇疑惑

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()