转自：寄托家园imong
比起新东方的，好太多了。。谢谢这写付出的人
还是首先把判据放在前面:
Score: 4
Explanation of Score:
A 4 paper presents a competent critique of the argument and conveys meaning adequately.
A typical paper in this category
-- identifies and analyzes important features of the argument
-- develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but may not connect them with transitions
-- supports the main points of the critique
-- demonstrates sufficient control of language to express ideas with reasonable clarity
-- generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English but may have some errors
Topic:
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. "Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Your Answer:
In this argument, the author alleges that the best use of Scott Woods is to build a school there , thus a large majority of children could participate in sports at the same time Scotte Woods could continue to benefit the community as a natural parkland. At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer examination discloses that it is based on faulty reasoning which consequently detracts the validityf from the conclusion.
借着这个机会要好好地分析一下argument的开头。让pooh和我都倒吸一口凉气的是ScoreItNow来了这么一句：Erater has not identified a thesis in your essay. A thesis is the most important sentence in an essay. 再仔细一看整个第一段都被判为了introductory material。（附ScoreItNow的说明：Introductory Material: Is this part of your introduction? An introduction attracts the reader’s interest and provides background information. It also contains your thesis sentence.）需要指出一下的是，虽然ScoreItNow说了“it also contains your thesis sentence”，但是在pooh的issue里面introductory material和thesis statement是独立判定的（参见我前两天的帖子，pooh的issue第一段最后一句判定为thesis，而第一段前面的部分被判定为introductory message），而同时，在issue的技术分析时ScoreItNow给出的关于Introductory Material的说明和上文刚刚原封不动抄过来的这个是一样的。综上所述，这篇argument的确是没找到Thesis，而且这恐怕不是太好的事情，参见scoreitnow给出的对于thesis的说明：
1． thesis is the most important sentence in an essay.（argument里面没找到thesis时候给出的）
2．Is this your thesis? The purpose of a thesis is to organize, predict, control, and define your essay. （issue里面scoreitnow对找到的thesis做出的反馈信息，个人认为这句话值得记住！）
那么，如果说到organize，predict，control，define的话，有必要研究仔细了，argument到底是怎么开头的。没得说，一定是看官方范文：University of Claria的6-5-4分文章做个对比，看起来似乎比较典型：
claria 6
While the University of Claria appears to have an excellent reputation based on the accomplishments and reputations of its faculty, one would also wish to consider other issues before deciding upon this particular institution for undergraduate or graduate training.
Claria 5
While it is true that the facts presented in the above passage contribute to the idea that the University of Claria is a fine university, it can hardly be concluded from the propaganda that the University of Claria is the best university for every applicant.
应该说这两个都起到了统领全文的一个总起的作用(虽然我不敢保证这两句话就是典型的可被判为Thesis的句子，目前这一点缺乏证据)。让我们看看下面这个：Claria 4分
The argument states that anyone who is looking for a quality education should choose The Universtiy of Claria based on the instructors they have to offer. The argument assumes that students can learn better from faculty members who are internationally renowned and who have been invited to universities in other countries to teach. The proof of their argument rests on the fact that two recent graduates have been candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics, and that 75 percent of their graduates find employment upon graduation.
这种开头似乎看上去很面熟（似乎n多人都这样写），看看评语怎么说的：
Comment:
While the first paragraph of this adequate response [merely summarizes] the argument, the remainder of the essay identifies and analyzes several significant flaws in the argument.
后半句不看，我觉得从while和merely两个词能够看出来评判的语气和态度。如果说这一点还不够令人信服的话，看看下面这个：
Scott woods 6
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.
说实在的人家比我们更会玩儿，索性开头就开了3段，看看评语：
Comment: This outstanding response begins somewhat [hesitantly]; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument.
论证精彩因而得到6分是后面的事情（当然，第三个段落基本上也能算作开始进入argue的状态），单独分析前面两段内容的话，人家对这种summary的评判叫做hesitantly，“do not immediately engage the argument”。如果把immediately给去掉就更明显了：[do not engage the argument.]
这样想来，也难怪pp3说明文件里面有这样的文字了：
[Do not spend a lot of time summarizing the argument unless you think it will effectively develop your critique. Readers know which Argument topic you were assigned.]
Unless you think it will effectively develop your critique，可是目前恐怕还没发现哪篇文章因为写了summary从而effectively develop了critique，谁是因谁是果不言自明，这篇六分文章就是最好的例证：上面那句commentary后面紧接着的是However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail. 在看到后半句夸奖文章对argument的分析的同时想想人家为什么在前面来了一个however，我想这个态度的取向已经是再明显不过了。
因此，我认为，开头画上一个段落4到6句话来summarize基本上没有积极的效果，还不如省省力气好好组织深入后面的内容，这种summary性质的文字撑死了一两句话。这一点参见上面举过的claria的6分和5分的例子，也参见这个例子：
Forestville 6
The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.
甚至更过分的：Silver Screen 5
The advertising director of Silver Screen should lose his job. It is clear that his analysis of the decrease in attendance in the past year was incomplete.
当然，可别以为来一句某某人必须lose his job就万事大吉了，看看commentary：This strong essay begins with an attack on the advertising director of Silver Screen but quickly shifts to identifying major flaws in the argument. 人家重点在后头呢：quickly shifts to identifying flaws in the argument.
在这里稍微总结一下：
1.分析了数个Argument的commentary之后我认为对题目的summary被认可的程度相当低，尤其是claria4和scott woods 6。
2.不管是silver screen 5还是scott woods 6，两个极端，人家commentary的重心都在identifying flaws in the argument / target on central flaws… 花那么大力气写一个垃圾开头没什么意义
3.当然了，如果习惯于写summary作为开头的话，从scott woods 6 得到的启示则是这个东西不会给你造成多少负面影响，但同时基本上没有积极意义。也因此我在第二点里面称之为垃圾。
而下面要说到的是更加重要的一点：再回过头来看看pooh的开头
In this argument, the author alleges that the best use of Scott Woods is to build a school there , thus a large majority of children could participate in sports at the same time Scotte Woods could continue to benefit the community as a natural parkland. At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer examination discloses that it is based on faulty reasoning which consequently detracts the validityf from the conclusion.
我想很多人都可能会奇怪为什么被判没有thesis？那从at the first glance开始写的东西算什么？？这个就是下面要讨论的另一个重点问题：先看看这个例子
Forestville 4
从里面摘出来了两个句子：
1.A logical path is followed throughout the paragraph and the conclusion is expected.
2. If the two missing pieces of information had been presented and were in the author's favor, then the conclusion that the author made would have been much more sound than it currently is.
而commentary里面恰好有关于这两个句子的评判：
The first third and last third of the essay are relatively insubstantial, consisting mainly of general summary statements (e.g., "A logical path . . . conclusion is expected" and "If the two . . . more sound than it currently is"). The real heart of the critique consists of minimal development of the two points mentioned above.
[Relatively insubstantial]，[general summary statement]. 这就是给出的评语。不难想象这句话也会收到同样的待遇：At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer examination discloses that it is based on faulty reasoning which consequently detracts the validityf from the conclusion.
很遗憾的是我没能在官方给出的Argument范文commentary中找出更多的例如上面这样的支持信息，因而我否认这种general statement的效力的企图难以从范文中得到直接有力的支持。尽管如此，我仍然提出这样的观点：general statement基本上也是垃圾。我以下面两个现象作为论据：
1.官方范文里面，从1到6，尤其是从4到6，general statement基本上比较罕见。偶尔个别有在开头段落闪现一下仅仅作为introductory material，而除了上面这个被批判的例子以外根本就没有过general statement作为TS或者准TS来引导整个一个段落/意群的。这和我们动辄通篇First, this argument is … by a fallacious comparison / secondly… based on a false analogy / third hasty generalization/ a careful examination will reveal how groundless it is… 这样的写法大不相同。从模仿范文的角度出发我认为应当重新慎重考虑。毕竟：如果TS是First, this argument is based on a false analogy，天晓得这段打算说什么。
2.当然，我们既然都写aw，肯定能够反驳我上面这个论据：argument范文中没有出现，不等于此种方法无效或者有负面效应。的确，如果单纯从范文字面体现上来考虑，不能够彻底否认掉general statement这种写法。而且，我想从我们原先接触的一些学习资料出发，很可能我们从感性上也容易排斥上面的观点。但是：回过头来看看pooh的例子，为什么pooh的argument第一段最后一句没有被判为thesis？如果说general statement是有效的，为什么没有被识别为thesis，还是说根本无法作为thesis？对general statement而言，这一点恐怕难以回避，而我想pooh既然已经把At the first glance…句写在了那个位置，恐怕就是为了用作thesis吧。至于说silentwings曾经说过的散发着腐尸气息的post hoc, ergo propter hoc（好像还真有人用出来过），其效果恐怕更加不会好到哪里去。
我在此作出的推论主要基于上述两个事实（尤其是后一个）：因为pooh的general statement并未被判作thesis而是被刷进了introductory materials，所以我认为这种general statement基本上没有太大的写作效力，更不用说作TS，作Thesis这种重要任务。同时我必须承认：目前我作出的这个论断还需要进一步寻找论据来深入支持。毕竟后面这个关键例证（pooh’s thesis）只是单独的一次现象，并不是一个很强的evidence。不过，对于官方范文的观察，也就是第一点，应该说是完全没有问题的。
应该补充的一点是：虽然我声称general statement基本上是垃圾，但是和上一个垃圾一样，它不会造成太大的负面影响（如果通篇基本上完全用垃圾来作为论证的情况除外），但是也没有什么积极意义。重头戏仍然是论证的充实上面。同时，我认为如果TS，thesis上面能够用到很具体的组织表达效果会好得多，这一点参见官方范文，尤其看看高分段的文章是怎么写的。个人认为官方范文还是很值得去研究，体会，学习，模仿从而进行再创造的，希望大家遇到问题的时候，自己去翻翻范文寻求答案，而不是寻求道听途说。毕竟那是官方给出的sample啊，they can’t be more authoritative。
开头到底怎么写，TS，Thesis到底怎么写，不妨再看看范文。
已经写了很长了，主要说了两点：开头段落的写法分析和thesis/topic sentence的写法批判，关于pooh的文章的主体的进一步分析和其他一些结论，我再整理一下，过两天单独开一个帖子。
Ps. 晚上的时候看着看着范文突然想到了很多，一口气写完已经是深夜两点半了，其中11点45的时候宿舍拉闸，本本撑了一个半小时之后也电力耗光，然后跑到水房把公用洗衣机的电源拔掉鸠占鹊巢打完了这篇文章，不可谓不折腾。不过，不管怎么样，一口气做完一件事，总应该是感觉不错的。最后感谢Heart Of Sword~夜明け前~陪我度过了写文章的几个小时，是音乐给了我灵感和动力。
