第一次写的作文，花了近一小时，才325字，请同学们剖析

rosmarine

第一篇AI

A13. “Employers can best motivate
employees not through raises and bonuses but rather by offering non-monetary
highly-publicized awards for high performance (e.g., employee-of-the-month
awards, special parking spaces, personal letters from management, etc.).”

Discuss the extent to which you
agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with
reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the business world, employers always face the
dilemma to make choice between monetary awards and non-monetary awards to
motivate employees’ better performance.
This problem is a much debated one since it affects each and every
person, not only employees but also employers themselves, in their day-to-day
lives.  Before rendering my opinion, I
think it necessary to take a glance at the issue from both sides.

From the employees’ angle, it is not difficult to
conclude that the more money awards they receive, the happier they are going to
be, and that the happier they are, the higher productivity can be
expected.  Although I admit that
non-monetary awards can sometimes emotionally excite the employees, the
excitement will eventually disappear since it is not based on actual benefits.  As it stands, money awards are probably
preferable to non-monetary awards if employees were to choose.

But this preference is apparently opposite to that of
employers.  From the employers’
perspective, cost-efficiency is of top priority.  Every CEO in this world is contemplating solutions to achieve
best business performance at lowest cost, that is, solutions by which
investment and return meet at a balanced point.  If employers can figure out the solutions that can considerably
motivate employees while save cost at the mean time, they will not render
monetary awards for sure.

Combining the two positions described above, I would
say that employers have to keep the employees’ preference in mind first and
then work out a feasible and affordable alternative to realize their ultimate
goal.  In other words, an incentive
mechanism of a company that applies only non-monetary awards while completely
abandons money awards is bound to fail, because its employees will finally lose
enthusiasm toward the company.  Rather,
the company should design the awards system in a compatible manner, allocating
the money awards to a higher weight and the non-monetary awards to a lower
weight.  Thus we can expect better
business performance at a relatively low cost.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-6 17:34:40编辑过]

rosmarine

第一篇AA

A12. The following appeared in a memo from a vice president
of Mama Mia's, a chain of Italian restaurants:

"Officials of the movie industry report that over 70% of the
movies released last year targeted a teenage audience. Furthermore, national
sales data indicate that the favorite food of teenagers is pizza. Since a
branch store of Good Times Movie Rental opened on Center Street six months ago,
sales of takeout pizza at our restaurant next door have been higher than at any
other restaurant in our chain. Because the rental of movies seems to stimulate
pizza sales, the best way to increase our profits is to open new Mama Mia's
restaurants next to or very near all of the Good Times Movie Rental stores.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this argument, the vice president of Mama Mia’s, a chain
of Italian restaurants, recommends that new Mama Mia’s branch restaurants be
opened next to or very near the Good Times Movie Rental stores in order
to increase the pizza sales of Mama Mia’s.
To support this conclusion, the author points out that movie rental
stores can stimulate pizza sales since teenagers, the targeted audience of most
movies, would like to eat pizza while watching movies.  The evidence he provided is that a Mama
Mia’s restaurant has significantly increased its pizza sales since a branch
store of Good Times Movie Rental opened next door to it.  At first glance, the argument seems to be
somewhat reasonable, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from a
couple of critical flaws.

First, the author commits a logical fallacy of causal
oversimplification.  His line of
reasoning is that because A happens before B, A is responsible for B.  He attributes the sales increase of the Mama
Mia’s restaurant on Center Street to the debut of the nearby movie rental store
simply because the former occurred after the latter.  This reasoning is unconvincing since it fails to consider other
factors that may cause the increase of pizza sales.  For example, it is very likely that this individual restaurant
has either improved the quality of its customer service or altered the flavor
of its products. It is also possible that people have gradually changed their
attitude upon pizza since they have increasingly found it convenient and
nutrient and thus increased their purchase.
Until these possible reasons are considered and ruled out, the author
cannot validly draw the conclusion.

Second, the author assumes that the movies that will be
released in the coming years are also targeted the teenage audience as the
movies released last year were.
However, no evidence is provided in the argument to support this
assumption.  The fact that over 70% of
the movies released last year targeted teenagers does not necessarily forecast
future trends of the movie industry.  If
the movie industry no longer focuses on the teenager audience in the future
years, as a result no teenagers will shop at Good Times Movie Rental, and
consequently the next-door Mama Mia’s will lose its major customer base, not to
mention increase profits.

In sum, the vice president fails to provide adequate
justification for the business recommendation he made.  To strengthen the conclusion, the author
would have to prove that the sales increase is indeed caused by the nearby
movie rental store, not by other events, and that the movies to be released
later on will continuously targets at teenagers.

这篇还好，有440字了。第一次训练模版，好多结构性的句子都是照魔板抄来的，自己没动脑筋改，呵呵，争取多练几篇，熟了大概就能稍微变化变化了。关于这篇AA的问题就是想不出逻辑错误，死活憋了大半天才想出两点，还好自己比较能扩展，字还不算少。但是最好能写出三点以上，对吧？

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-6 20:46:58编辑过]

rosmarine

现在没人帮着改了吗？我还以为贴出来可以有人挑挑毛病，指出些语法、逻辑、结构、句式、用词方面的错误。

rosmarine

第二篇AA

A11. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper:

“Last year when Washington County received a special appropriation for improving highway safety, it spent all those funds to straighten sections of certain county roads. Unfortunately, the number of traffic accidents in the county was actually higher than in the previous year. Although Adams County received a smaller appropriation for improving highway safety, it hired more police officers and enforced traffic laws more strictly. Last year Adams County reported 15% fewer traffic accidents than during the previous year. Since money for improving highway safety throughout the state is limited, we can achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all such funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this argument, the author concludes that a strict enforcement of traffic laws is more economical and more effective in improving highway safety than the improvement of the condition of roads.  To support his conclusion, the author cites the real cases of Washington County and Adams County as evidence, in which the former spent large amounts of money to straighten county roads but incurred higher traffic accident rate while the latter, with smaller funds, hired more policemen and enforced traffic laws more strictly but achieved better traffic records. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several critical flaws.

First of all, the author commits the logic fallacy of “all things are equal”, assuming that the case in Washington County is analogous to the one in Adams County in all respects. This assumption is questionable since no indication is given for us to believe that the two counties are comparable in nature.  For example, Washington County may historically have suffered from poor road condition, which has caused the majority of the county’s traffic problems, and thus improving the road condition is the most urgent and also the wisest choice of Washington County.  On the contrary, it is very likely that Adam County was in greater need of strict enforcement of traffic laws than in need of road construction since the county might historically have a lower-than-average ratio of policemen to total population, and apparently the enhancement of police power turns out to be effective.

Second, the author takes it for granted that the decreased traffic accident rate in Adam County is exclusively caused by the enforcement of strict traffic laws.  However, no evidence is provided in the argument to support this assumption.  erhaps a certain educational propaganda triggered the increase in traffic consciousness among the county’s people, or perhaps many people replaced their cars with newer and thus safer vehicles or simply transferred to mass transit.  Until these possible reasons are considered and ruled out, the author cannot draw the conclusion beyond doubt.

In addition, the author fails to explore the truth behind the surface.  He simply notices the temporary increase in Washington County’s traffic accidents; as is known to all, this increase is reasonably unavoidable during the road construction, and a foreseeable decrease in accident rate can be expected upon the finish of the construction.  Therefore, it is irresponsible to conclude that the improvement of the condition of roads in Washington County is more costly and less effective than the enforcement of strict traffic laws in Adam County.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because of the logical errors mentioned above.  To strengthen the argument, the author would have to prove the two counties are logically comparable with regard to certain major criteria.  The author should also demonstrate in his analysis that the very measures, not other events, undertaken by both counties undoubtedly lead to the respective outcomes so that the cited facts can be viewed as evidence.  

第二篇AA，字数500，时间还是超长，总想写的好些，句式丰富些，语法准确些，写得时候就翻来覆去的改，就很慢，怎么克服这个问题呢？

追逐梦想2006

很粗略的看了看，有几点意见。

（1）如果还有很长时间考试，每篇文章花的时间多一点无所谓，在最后模考阶段一定要知道自己30分钟之内能够写多少字数，组织多少个思路；

（2）MM的写作水平还是很高的。每篇文章的论述都很充分。

（3）AI那篇，感觉观点亮的不够明确。我个人不太喜欢在第一段不阐述观点的写法。你的观点是在最后一段阐述出来的。个人觉得，如果是第一段直接的阐明观点，征文部分分两段，一个是正观点，一个是让步的反观点。当然正观点一定要论述的充分一些，字数要比反观点多，论据要充分。最后一段，重复一下观点。这在考试中大有帮助。因为，如果把最后一段写的观点明确（当然字数不要太少，用一些常用的废话），而不是像你这篇AI，最后一段还是在就题论述。这样更容易形成自己写作的模板，减少时间的耗费。－－个人观点，希望没有说错

（4）AA写的不错，理由阐述的都很充分。个人感觉AA写三个逻辑错误就可以了，5段是我最欣赏的。一个小错误，第4楼的第二段，这个fallacy的名称错误了把。First of all, the author commits the logic fallacy of “all things are equal”。应该是"false analogy"吧。

（5）解决你AA超时的问题。有时候，写3个逻辑fallacy，其中有一个可以不要进行论述，这样可以缩短时间。关键是把fallacy点出来即可。

以上均是我的看法，希望得到指正。

rosmarine

追逐梦想2006：

我感觉AA的结构比较容易，第一段概括原文，指出错误，第二、三、四段列举错误，第五段总结，提出改进法。

可是AI好像没什么固定的魔板可套，因为题目类型各不相同：有的可以纯支持，有的可以纯反对；有的支持一部分，有的反对一部分；有的从矛盾双方的角度来讨论；有的要自己提出新建议，有的纯评论就可以。

我昨天看了几篇AI的范文，发现有一个结构比较通用，就是on the one hand和on the other hand，加上一头一尾，总共四段，满清晰的。其实就是跟你楼上写的“征文部分分两段，一个是正观点，一个是让步的反观点”差不多。on the one hand和on the other hand可以是一正一反的观点，也可以是从矛盾双方的角度来讨论：比如雇主和员工的对立角度，做某件事的好处和坏处，等等。

今天写了一篇AI就是用这个结构，请再帮我看看，有什么毛病可以改进。当然，速度还是一个大问题，但我相信到了考场上肯定不会这么字斟句酌的吧。

APRIL 8, 2006

AI A3. “Government should place stricter
limits on the ability of businesses to invade citizens’ privacy through
telemarketing, E-mail, advertising, collection of personal information on
consumers, and so on, even if those limits affect businesses’ profitability and
competitiveness.”

Discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons
and/or examples from your experience, observations, or
reading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The speaker advocates that government should limit the
ability of businesses to invade citizens’ privacy through a variety of marketing
tools even if the regulation affects businesses’ profitability and
competitiveness.  While I agree that
citizens’ privacy should be of high priority of a democratic government, I think
the speaker’s assertion goes too far.  
Government reaction to certain issues should be based on a comprehensive
consideration that takes all respects – advantages as well as disadvantages –
into account.  Balancing the advantages
and disadvantages, the government can accordingly figure out an appropriate
solution to a specific problem.  

On the one hand, limiting the invasive marketing behavior of businesses
indeed has the advantage of protecting citizens’ privacy, which is an important
element in human rights.  Admittedly,
although most businesses collecting customers’ personal data assert that they
will keep customer information confidential, there are still many companies
illegally sell the data to others and make extra profit. And also, marketing
research can be somewhat troublesome or even annoying to people being
investigated.  Therefore, limiting such
behavior is certainly appreciated by citizens.

On the other hand, the disadvantage of doing so is even
more obvious.  Doing market research is
probably the first step for a company to develop business.  Without the real data from society, a company
can hardly make business plan, produce goods or services in demand, or sell the
goods or services to needed people.  From
this perspective, businesses can hardly survive in the competitive market if
they are prohibited from collecting customer information through marketing
tools.  As a result, the decline of
businesses’ profitability and competitiveness can directly undermine the whole
economy by reducing the tax revenue of government.  At the same time, the failure of businesses
to provide good products and services can also hamper the citizens’
benefit.  Hence, the disadvantage caused
by limiting the ability of business to collect customer information appears to
be more dangerous to a society, compared with the invasion of citizens’
privacy.  

In sum, I believe it is unwise for a government to take absolute action
to deal with the issue in question.  This
is not to say that businesses can invade citizens’ privacy without limit.  Considering the bigger disadvantage and
relatively smaller advantage, government should allow businesses to do market
research, including collection of citizens’ private data, at a moderate
level.  In addition, as far as citizens’
privacy is concerned, every one has the right to refuse to take the
investigation if he/she does not feel comfortable with it.

追逐梦想2006

我准备AI的时候很粗略，不管什么文章，都先拉出一个问题，然后some advocates that... whereas others may champion that...之类的。 然后说出自己的观点 on a personal level, i have a penchant for the viewpoint that... 第二段上来就是一个反观点 the statement ... is partially appropriate。第三四段对正观点进行阐述。第五段结尾。虽然比较简单，但是通用性高。

就上面一篇AI,我觉得真的写的很好了，观点和结构都很清晰。你的写作功底很强。几点小建议，可以有选择性的参考一下：

(1) 第一段，为什么不清晰的表明观点？I think the speaker’s assertion goes too far 这个观点亮的比较含糊；当然，2、3段的阐述能够明确说明你的观点，末尾段也清晰。但是我觉得老美更prefer第一段就直接说明观点的文章；

（2）既然prefer第三段的观点，应该阐述的更充分一些。多准备一些通用性的facts，我感觉GMAC评分时看到facts，会自然而然给你更高的分数；

（3）用词和句式上有一定变化。有时候弄一个倒装句上去（放在第一段或者最后一段尤佳），会给平分者很好的感觉。

追逐梦想2006

另外，如果AWA要拿满分，AA一定要写的好，拿到满分。AI我觉得评分的尺度比较松，一般写出点实质性的内容，就会给你比较高的分数了。

所以，AWA的满分其实很容易拿的。多训练几篇，以你的写作功底，应该没有太大的问题。

rosmarine

追逐梦想2006：

谢谢你给我的建议。我想得5分就够好的了，所以也不期待满分，因为我很怕照自己这个蜗牛速度很可能到时候写都写不完，怎敢奢求满分？所以接下来还是要练速度。我想，等我把AA和AI的基本结构（也就是魔板吧，但不是那种以一当十的魔板，只是基本结构相同）记熟了，再写应该能快一点。

你7楼给我的建议（1），我就是觉得有很多AI题目是要conditional的进行分析，比如本文的advantage和disadvantage，要两方面都分析过才能得出明确的结论，所以无法在第一段就明确提出观点，而只能在第一段指出这个问题需要综合分析才能下结论，所以二、三段分析完了以后就顺理成章的在结尾段说出结论。当然，有些AI比较简单，单一的支持或反对，这样就能在第一段开宗明义了。

对于建议（2），这确实是我的一个弱点。我只会讲commonsense的大道理，脑子里没例子。昨天下载了例子集，要好好看看。

对于建议（3），恩，我会记住的，句式没变化确实很boring的，不过倒装句有点难度，还有虚拟语气句子，要非常注意语法，看来这也要结合SC来的，呵呵。