| ¡ì3ÓïÑÔÏÖÏó ¡¡¡¡Òò¹ûÁ¬´Ê ¡¡¡¡because, soÒý³öϸ½ÚÔÒò/½áÂÛ,²»±Ø¹Ø×¢,½âÌâʱÄÜ·ÖÇå¡°ËÊÇÒòËÊǹû¡±¼´¿É ¡¡¡¡½á¹ûÁ¬´Ê--so, therefore, hence, thus , concludeÒý³öÃ÷È·½áÂÛ,¶àÔÚ¶ÎÄ©,ÎÄÄ©,öλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔØÄÚÈÝÖ®ºó ¡¡¡¡´ú´Ê ¡¡¡¡this, theseÍùÉÏÖ¸´ú ¡¡¡¡Ë³½Ó¹Øϵ²»ÓÃϸ¶Á,²»Óñê¼Ç ¡¡¡¡Ë³½ÓÁ¬´Ê£ºfurther, furthermore, moreover, in addition ¡¡¡¡Ë³½Ó¹Øϵ£ºÎÞתÕÛ,̬¶ÈÒ»ÖÂ,ÄÚÈÝÑÓÉ죻»òÎÞÈκÎÁ¬½Ó´Ê¹ý¶É ¡¡¡¡Ë³½Ó¹ØϵµÄ´¦Àí£ºË³½Ó¹ØϵÕÒµÚÒ»¾ä,ºóÃæµÄ˳µÚÒ»¾ä ¡¡¡¡×÷ÕßÇ°ºó̬¶ÈÒ»Ö£º¿ÉÒÔÅÔÖ¤×÷Õß̬¶È¡£¶ÔÓÚÉú´Ê,¿ÉÀûÓÃ˳½Ó¹ØϵÍƲ⡣ȫ¶ÎÎÞÁ¬´Ê,¶ÎÊ×ΪÖ÷¾ä ¡¡¡¡×ªÕÛ¹Øϵ ¡¡¡¡Ò»°ãתÕÛÁ¬´Ê£ºnevertheless, nonetheless, in fact , indeed, virtually, actually, practically ¡¡¡¡however¢ÙתÕÛ£»¢ÚÈò½however = no matter how²åÈëÓ¢ÛµÝ½ø,Ò»Á¬´®ÐоÙÖ®ºó ¡¡¡¡*but....¢ÙÒ»°ãûÒâÒå,Èô³öÏÖÔÚ2¶Î¾äÊ×,±íʾ´óתÕÛ,Ìá³öй۵㣻¢ÚÏÖÏó²ûÊöºó,¶ÔÇ°ÊöÏÖÏó³Ö¸ºÆÀ¼Û£»¢Û¡°......but......¡±¶ÌÓï½á¹¹,ÖصãÔÚbutºó ¡¡¡¡*yet....ÏÖÏó²ûÊöºó,¶ÔÇ°ÊöÏÖÏó³Ö¸ºÆÀ¼Û ¡¡¡¡although¢Ù³öÏÖÔÚÇ°°ë¾ä,¡°¾¡¹Ü¡±,Òýµ¼Èò½×´Óï´Ó¾ä,ÖØÐÄÔÚºó°ë¾ä£»¢Ú³öÏÖÔÚÔÚºó°ë¾ä,¡°µ«ÊÇ¡±,ÖØÐÄÔÚºó°ë¾ä,±íתÕÛ£½but ¡¡¡¡¡¾×¢Òâ¡¿£º×ªÕÛÁ¬´Ê³öÏÖÔÚÒ»Á¬´®ÐоÙÖ®ºó±íʾµÝ½ø¹Øϵ,Òý³ö¸üÖØÒªµÄÔÒò¡£ ¡¡¡¡¡ùÒ»Á¬´®ÐоÙÖ®ºó³öÏÖתÕÛÁ¬´Êhowever, yet, butʱ,±íʾµÝ½øÓïÆø,²»±íʾתÕÛ»òÈò½(¿ÉÓÃno matter howÌæ»»)¡£ ¡¡¡¡¡¾ÆäËü¡¿£ºÒ»¸ö¶ÎÂäҪתÕÛÒ»°ãÔÚµÚ2¾ä,·ñÔò¾Í²»×ªÕÛÁË ¡¡¡¡unhappy, unfortunately½ö×ö̬¶È¡¢ÓïÆø´ÊÓÃ,²»×öתÕÛÁ¬´Ê ¡¡¡¡Ç¿¶Ô±È¹Øϵ£º ¡¡¡¡(1)±ê׼ǿ¶Ô±È£ºunlike£»in contrast to, be distinguished from, used to, on the other hand ¡¡¡¡(2)ʱ¼ä×´ÓïÇ¿¶Ô±È£ºNow, new, nowadays, current;once, until recently, past... ¡¡¡¡¡î¡î¡îÊ×¾äÓÐÃ÷ȷʱ¼ä×´ÓïµÄ,Ò»¶¨ÊÇÇ¿¶Ô±È¡£ ¡¡¡¡(3)±äÌåÇ¿¶Ô±È£ºÎ¨Ò»ÐÔ(only, sole, unique),×î¸ß¼¶(-est, most), always, never,ÅÅÐò(first, last, ...),³Ì¶È´Ê(uttermost, foremost), all, none, any... ¡¡¡¡¡î¡î¡îº¬×î¸ß¼¶¡¢Î¨Ò»ÐÔÑ¡ÏîÒ»°ã²»³ÉÁ¢,³ý·ÇÔÎÄÓжÔÓ¦µÄÃ÷ȷ˵·¨¡£ ¡¡¡¡(4)ÆÕͨ´óС±È½Ï,±¶Êý¹Øϵ ¡¡¡¡ÐéÄâÓïÆø£º ¡¡¡¡would, couldµÈÒý³öµÄδʵÏֵijÂÊö, GREÖÐÖ»±íʾÓëÊÂʵÏà·´µÄÇé¿ö¡£No. P226 Q19, 90-94 P2 Q19ÐéÄâÈ¡·Ç£ºÌâ¸É˵·¨ÓëÔÎÄ˵·¨Ïà·´,¶ÔÔÎÄÕýȷ˵·¨(¿ÉÄܲ»Ö¹Ò»¸ö)È¡·Ç¡£ ¡¡¡¡Èò½ÓïÆø£º ¡¡¡¡(1)¡ïdo/ may /haveÒý³öµÄÇ¿µ÷¾ä±íʾ¡°Èò½¡±,²»±íʾǿµ÷,תÕÛºóÊÇÖص㡣¡Ì ¡¡¡¡have¸ú³éÏóÃû´Ê, It has its critics.ËüµÄÈ·Êܵ½ÅúÆÀ¡£ ¡¡¡¡(2)of course, certainly, no problem, no doubt, without doubt, after all, it is not to deny..±í´ïµÄÈò½ÓïÆø ¡¡¡¡(3)Ç°Ãæ¸ø³öÃ÷ȷ̬¶Èºó,ºóÃæÔÙ¸ø³öÏ෴̬¶È,¿Ï¶¨ÊÇÈò½ ¡¡¡¡(4)Ô¤ÆÚʽ·´¶ÔʽÈò½you might object that, ..., you are wrong. ¡¡¡¡(5)ÓÉeven, while, although, however(=no matter how), granted that [¼´±ãÊÇ˵], insofar asµÈÁ¬´ÊÒýµ¼µÄÈò½ÓïÆø ¡¡¡¡(6)Èò½¾äʽ£ºIt¡¯s true that...=True, ....¡Ì ¡¡¡¡(7)Ç°Ãæ³öÏÖ¾ø¶Ô»¯µÄ˵·¨,Ç¿µ÷¾äʱ,ºóÃæ±ØÈ»ÓÐÈò½,Èò½ºó±ØÓÐתÕÛ ¡¡¡¡¡¾×¢Òâ¡¿£ºÎÄÕÂÄ©¾äÈç¹û×÷Èò½,Ò»°ã²»Äܺ³¶¯Ç°ÃæµÄ¹Ûµã,Ö»ÊÇΪÁËʹ±í´ï¸üÑϽ÷ ¡¡¡¡¡îÈò½ÓïÆøµÄ×÷Ó㺠¡¡¡¡¢ÙÈò½ºó±ØÓÐתÕÛ£»¢ÚÈò½ÓïÆøÔÚ̬¶ÈÌâÖеÄ×÷ÓÃ--±»×÷ÕßÈò½µÄÄÚÈÝ,´ð°¸ÌåÏÖÈò½ÓïÆø¡Ì ¡¡¡¡¡ùÓÐÈò½¸ºÆÀ¼Û£ºÖ÷̬¶ÈÔÚתÕÛºó[¹úÄÚÌâP13Q22] ¡¡¡¡¡¾×¢¡¿£ºalthough³öÏÖÔÚºó°ë¾äʱ£½but,תÕÛÁ¬´Ê ¡¡¡¡GREÉèÎʾ䣺¢ÙÓÐÎʱش𣻢Ú×ÔÎÊ×Դ𣻢ÛÖ÷ÌâÌâÐÍ(´ð°¸ËùÔÚ) ¡¡¡¡gP35ÉèÎʾ䣺ÓÐÎʱشð,×ÔÎÊ×Ô´ð,Ö÷ÌâÌâÐÍ ¡¡¡¡ÏÞ¶¨ÐÔÓïÆø ¡¡¡¡ÏÞ¶¨ÐÔÓïÆø±íʾ×÷ÕßÓб£ÁôÒâ¼û,ΪETSÆ«°®,¿ÉÄÜÕýÈ·µÄһЩÏÞ¶¨ÐÔÐÞÊδʣº ¡¡¡¡qualified, guarded, tempered, partially, tentativeȨÇÒ, reluctant²»ÍêÈ«µÄ, ¡¡¡¡criticallyÅúÅеġ ¡¡¡¡qualifyÔÚÌâ¸É¡¢Ñ¡ÏîÖÐ×÷¡°ÏÞ¶¨,±£Áô¡±½âÊÍ¡£ ¡¡¡¡Ìõ¼þ¾ä£º ¡¡¡¡½á¹¹Òýµ¼µÄÌõ¼þ¾ä,Ìõ¼þ³ÉÁ¢,½áÂÛ²ÅÓпÉÄܳÉÁ¢¡£×÷Õß²»Ëµ³ÉÁ¢Óë·ñ,Ôò½á¹û²»Öª ¡¡¡¡if true/possible±íʾµÄÌõ¼þ,²»³ä·ÖÌõ¼þÒ²¿ÉÒÔÊÇ´ð°¸ ¡¡¡¡·ñ¶¨¾ä£º·ñ¶¨¾ä ¡¡¡¡·ñ¶¨¾äºóÃæ±ØÓп϶¨¾ä,Öص㿴¡£·ñ¶¨¾ä·²ÊÇÓë̬¶ÈÎ޹صÄ,¶¼ÊÇÓÐÆçÒåµÄ¡£²»Ð¡ÓÚ¡Ù´óÓÚ ¡¡¡¡A no more adj. than B¶ÔA, B¹²Í¬·ñ¶¨ ¡¡¡¡ÅжϾä±íÃ÷×÷Õß̬¶È,ÕýÆÀ¼Û¿ÉÄÜÊÇTS ¡¡¡¡¼ÙÉè ¡¡¡¡assumeµ£ÈÎ,¼ÙÉè,²ÉÓô𰸣ºÓÿ϶¨¾ä°Ñ²îÒì˵³öÀ´¡£ ¡¡¡¡±êµã·ûºÅ ¡¡¡¡Ã°ºÅ¡°£º¡±±íʾͬÒåÖظ´·ÖºÅ¡°£»¡±±íʾ˳½Ó¡¢²¢ÁÐ ¡¡¡¡¡°-¡±Í¬ÒåÖظ´¡°--¡±²åÈëÓï ¡¡¡¡ÒýºÅ¡°¡±±íʾ¸ºÆÀ¼Û ¡¡¡¡Áо١¢¾ÙÀý ¡¡¡¡ÓÐÃ÷È·ÁоٱêÖ¾,Ö»¹Ø×¢ÁоٶÔÏó,´óÁоÙÐè×÷±ê¼Ç¡£Àý×Ó¿ÉÒÔ²»¿´,³ý·ÇÓдóдÃû´Ê¡£ ¡¡¡¡Ó¦ÓãºÀà±È, EXCEPTÌâ,ÂÞÂíÊý×ÖÌâ, in order toÌâ ¡¡¡¡×÷Õß:carol97 2.ARGUMENT½á¹¹ÐÔÖ¸µ¼ ¡¡¡¡ARGUMENTµÄ½á¹¹ÐԱȽϹ̶¨£¬Ò×ÓÚÕÆÎÕ£¬Óùýж«·½ÊéµÄ¿¼Éú³öÊÖ¶¼ÄÜд³ö¸ö±ê×¼µÄ¡°¾µä5¶Î(4¶Î)ʽ¡±£¬¿ÉÒÔ˵ÕâÖÖģʽÊÇÍêÈ«¿ÉÒÔ²ÉÓã¬Í¬Ê±Ò²ÊÇ×îºÃµÄ£¬×îÓÐЧµÄ¡£Ïà±È½ÏÆäÓàʲô¡°ÀϹÜд×÷ģʽ¡±£¬¡°Ë¼ÂíµÃÄ£°å×÷ÎÄ¡±£¬ÕâÖÖģʽÊÇÉϳ˵ÄÊ×Ñ¡£¬¶øÇÒÌõÀíÇåÎú£¬¿É¶ÁÐԺã¬ÈÝÒ×·½±ãÔľíÈ˸ø·Ö¡£ÕâÀïÓÉÓÚ´ÓÍøÉϺ£Á¿×÷ÎÄÏ°×÷¿´À´£¬¼¸ºõËùÓп¼Éú¶¼¶ÔARGUMENTµÄÕâÖÖд×÷ģʽÏ൱ÊìϤ£¬Òò´Ë½ö¶ÔÆäÖгöÏÖµÄÆÕ±éÎÊÌâÇ¿µ÷ºÍ¾ÀÕýһϣº ¡¡¡¡(1)¿ªÍ·ºÍ½áβ£ºÓÉÓÚARGUMENTʱ¼äµÄ½ôÆÈÐÔ£¬¿ªÍ·ºÍ½áβӦ¸Ã¾¡Á¿¼ò¶Ì¶øÃ÷È·£¬Æäƪ·ù×ÜÁ¿Ó¦²»³¬¹ýÕýÎIJ¿·ÖµÄ1/3¡£ºÜ¶à¿¼ÉúÒ»ÉÏÀ´¾Í»¨ÁË5£¬6·ÖÖÓ°ÑÌâ¸ÉÖеÄÂ۾ݽáÂÛÓø´Ôӵij¤¾ä×ÓתÊö£¬ÔÚÏóÕ÷ÐÔµØÓÚ½áβÀ´Ò»¾äÖîÈç¡°¾¹ýÎÒ·´¸´¼ì²é£¬ÆäÖÐÂÛ¾ÝÄ£ºý£¬Âß¼´íÎóºáÉú¡±Ö®ÀàµÄÌ×»°¡£È»ºóÔÚÕýÎÄÓÖÒª·ÖÌõ¹¥»÷²ûÊö¡£ÕâÊǼ«²»¿ÆѧµÄ¡°´Õ×ÖÊý¡±µÄģʽ£¬ÏàÐÅÀÏÍâÔľíÈËÒ»Ìì¿´¸ö°ÙÀ´ÆªµÄÕâÀàÎÄÕ£¬ºÜÈÝÒײúÉú¡°¶ñÒ⡱ºÍ¡°¹ýÃô¡±£¬Ò»ÅÖ®ÏÂÓÐÖÖÅÐΪ¡°Ààͬ¾í¡±µÄ³å¶¯¡£ÕýÈ·µÄ×ö·¨ÓÀÔ¶Ö»ÓУ¬ÓÃ1-2¾ä»°Ã÷Ã÷°×°×¸æËßÔľíÈË»ù±¾µÄ½áÂÛºÍÄãµÄ̬¶È£¬×÷µ½¼ò¶Ì¶øÓÐÁ¦£¬ÈÃÔľíÈËÒ»Ñ۾Ϳ´µ½ÄãµÄ¹Ûµã£¬²¢ÇÒÖªµÀÄãÒѾ¶Á¶®ÌâÄ¿²¢ÇÒ×÷ÁË»ù±¾µÄ׼ȷ»ØÓ¦¡£ÂÞÁÐÖ¤¾ÝÊÇÁô¸øÕýÎĵÄÊ¡£ÁíÍâ¶ÔÓÚ½á⣬²»Òª×ÜÊÇÒª¸æ½ä³öÌâÕßÒªÈçºÎÈçºÎ¼ÓÇ¿×Ô¼ºµÄÂÛÖ¤£¬ÎÒÃÇÍùÍù¿ÉÒÔ·´ÆäµÀ¶øÐУ¬ÓÃÉϵ㡰·í´Ì¡±£¬¡°ºÚÉ«ÓÄĬ¡±µÈÊÖ·¨ÈÿÝÔïµÄÎÄÕÂÔÚĩβչʾ³öÁ¼ºÃµÄ¿É¶ÁÐÔ£¬²©µÃÔľíÈ˵ġ°ºÃ¸Ð¡±¡£ ¡¡¡¡(2)ÕýÎÄ£º¾¡¹ÜÕâÊÇÂß¼×÷ÎÄ£¬Ìâ¸É¸øµÄÏñÒÔÇ°µÄÂß¼µ¥Ì⣬µ«ÊÇËýÊÇÒ»ÖÖ×÷ÎÄ£¬²»Êǿ͹ÛÌâ¡£´óÁ¿µÄʹÓÿ̰åµÄÂß¼¾äʽ¶ÔÓÚÎÄÕµÄÉú¶¯ÐÔ¡°°Ùº¦¶øÎÞÒ»Àû¡±¡£ºÜ¶à¿¼Éú±³»áÁËʲô¡°ËïÊÏÂß¼¾ä·¨¡±¾ÍÔÚÕýÎÄ´¦´ó´ò³öÊÖ£¬ÓÃЩ¿´ÉÏÈ¥¼«ÄÜ»£È˵ķÖÎö¾äʽ£¬ÏñÂß¼öλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔسöÉíµÄÈËÄÇÑù£¬×óÒ»¾ä¡°the arguer commits a fallacy of "false analogy",ÓÒÒ»¾ä"the arguer rests his conclusion on the classic logic fallacy of¡°post hoc, ergo propter hoc".Á¬À¶¡ÎĶ¼ÓÃÉÏÁË£¬Äã˵ÀÏÃÀ×öºÎ¸ÐÏë¡£°´ÖйúÈ˵Ļ°Ëµ£¬½Ð¡°µôÊé´ü¡±£¬µ±Öîλ¿¼Éú»¹ÔÚ×ÔÎÒΪÕâÖÖ´ô°åµÄ¾äʽÀִ˲»Æ£µÄʱºò£¬ÄãÊÇ·ñÁôÒâ¹ýGRE×÷ÎÄÔÚÄãµÄÊÖÏÂÊDz»ÊÇÓÐЩɢ·¢³öÏñËÀʬһÑùµÄ²Ô°×À´¡£×÷ÎÄÕߣ¬¾ÍÊÇÒªÒÔ¡°ÄÜ˵Ã÷ÎÊÌ⡱ΪÏÈ£¬¶ø²»ÊÇÔÚÕâÀï¡°×°ÉñŪ¹í¡±£¬¾¡¹ÜÂß¼·½ÃæµÄÂÛÖ¤ÎÒÃÇÐèÒªÂ߼֪ʶµÄÖ§³Å£¬µ«ÊÇÎÒÃÇÒª×÷ºÃµÄÊÇÖ»ÊÇ¡°½èÌâ·¢»Ó¡±£¬¡°µãµ½¼´Ö¹¡±¡£ÕýÈ·µÄ×ö·¨Ó¦¸ÃÊÇÕÆÎÕס¡°´íÎó¡±£¬¾¾×¡¶Ô·½µÄС±è£¬È»ºóÊʵ±´îÅä×ÅÖ¤¾ÝµÄÂÞÁгÆÊö£¬ºÏÀíÑ¡ÓÃÂß¼¾äʽ£¬Ò»ËµÃ÷ÎÊÌâÁ¢¿Ì»ØÀ´£¬¾¡Á¿ÓÃÀýÖ¤²»ÒªÈ¥×öÂß¼ÉϵÄÒò¹ûÂÛÖ¤¡£¾ßÌåÇë²Î¿´¶Ô±ÈÒÔÏ·¶ÎÄ£º ¡¡¡¡4.The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site. "Of the two leading real estate firms in our town¡ªAdams Realty and Fitch Realty¡ªAdams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitchs $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams." ¡¡¡¡(²¡ÀúÎÄ) ¡¡¡¡In this argument, the arguer recommends us to use Adams, one of the two leading real estate firms in our town, to sell our homes if you want to instead of Fitch, the other leading one. To justify his conclusion, the arguer provides the clear evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast to the number 25 of Fitch, and even many of which are only part-time. In addition, he cited the fresh statistics of revenues of both Adams and Fitch, which respectively are $168,000 and $144,000. To make it more conceivable, the arguer even lists out a self-experienced case to exhibit the superior sell speed of Adams to Fitch. Although all the evidences above seem reasonable, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is. ¡¡¡¡In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes Adams service is better than Fitchs with the assumption that more agents, more satisfaction. The 40 agents in Adams might be poorly trained and unqualified with an extremely low work efficiency, thus enlarging the number of the agents is the only feasible compensation. While Fitchs 25 agents may be well trained and be rich in experience, although many of them work only part-time, under the present work condition it is enough. And also the quality of the service cant be oversimplified to only a factor of the number of employees, which, in our common sense, has no necessary correlation. It is some other things should be taken into consideration, such as social reputation, the feedbacks of customers and the companys culture and spiritual, to avoid making the assertion too unwarranted. ¡¡¡¡In the second place, the statistics offered by the arguer cant elucidate anything. It seems true that Adams achievement is greater than Fitchs through the comparison of revenues, but the data itself is too vague to be informative. Taking into account the service charge, which cant be omitted in this case, we absolutely have adequate reasons to doubt the charge from Adams is far larger than Fitch, which eventually leads to such a gap. Another possibility of the result is contributing to the types of house they are entrusted to sell, since no evidence showed that Adams can afford to sell the lower-price estates while Fitch can assume the opposite ones, thus the phenomenon arises. ¡¡¡¡Last but not least, in short of legitimacy is that Fitch really sells homes slower than Adams does. According to the arguers narrative, he entrusted his home to Fitch ten years ago when the balance of offer-request heavily outweighed the left side and Fitch selling it in more than four months is nothing but a miracle. Adams, instead, sold his another home in one month last year during which the request for house might be booming as a result of influx of the foreign immigrants. Under this circumstance, Adams success, however, is merely ordinary. Besides, the two houses sold out no doubt have natural differences, which tightly related to the smooth process of selling, such as location, structure, areas, and materials. The arguer thus makes so hasty a generalization regardless of these crucial points. ¡¡¡¡As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned in lack of some indispensable evidence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would demonstrate that the superior quality of Adams agents and the relatively lower charge comparable to Fitchs. Additionally, more details should be evinced, concerning the actual estate situation in those periods of time and fundamental instructions of the two sold houses, to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities. (587 words) ¡¡¡¡µãÆÀ£º¸Ã·¶Îijä³â×ÅÉÏÃæÌÖÂ۵ĸ÷ÖÖ벡£¬½ö¿ªÍ·¾Í131×Ö£¬¼ÓÉϽáⳬ¹ý200×Ö£¬ÒѾԶԶ³¬¹ýÕýÎÄ1/3ƪ·ù£¬ÊDz»¿ÉÈ¡µÄ¡£Ðí¶àģʽ¾äÐͳä³â£¬½áβÀÏÌ×£¬²»ÖµµÃѧϰ½è¼ø¡£ÁíÍâºÜ¶à¿¼Éú¹ØÐÄÕâÑùÒ»À´×ÖÊý¾Í²»ºÏ¡°ÒªÇ󡱡£ETS´ÓÀ´Ã»ÓжÔ×÷ÎÄ×ÖÊýÓÐÒªÇ󣬾¡¹ÜÍøÉÏÁ÷ÐÐ˵·¨ÈÏΪÔľíÕß½«×ÖÊýÁÐΪ´ò·ÖÏîÄ¿Ö®Ò»£¬µ«ÊÇÔÚETS¹«²¼µÄÆÀ·Ö±ê×¼ÖÐÊÇÃÙ²»×Å×Ù¼£µÄ£¬¿öÇÒETS¼«½²¾¿¿ÆѧÐÔ£¬²»»áÒÔòȡÈË£¬µ«Çó¡°ÒÔÀí·þÈË¡±£¬Õâ ¡¡¡¡´ÓËûöλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔصÄÉè¼Æ¿ÉÒÔ¿´³öÀ´¡£ËùÒÔÕý³£µÄARGUMENT×÷ÎÄ¿ÉÒÔÔÚ¡°350¡ª¡ª500¡±×ÖÖ®¼ä£¬¶øISSUE¿ÉÔÚ¡°450¡ª¡ª600¡±Ö®¼ä£¬ÕâÊÇ°´Õý³£´ò×ÖËÙ¶ÈÓë˼άËÙ¶ÈÖ¸¶¨µÄ±ê×¼¡£ºÜ¶àÍøÉÏ×÷ÎÄ°üÀ¨ÎÒÕâÀïµÄijЩ·¶ÎĶ¼ÓÐÔ¶Ô¶³¬¹ý500£¬600×ֵģ¬ºÜÉÙÊÇÔÚÕæÕýÈ«·â±Õ×÷ҵϣ¬45·ÖÖÓ»ò30·ÖÖÓÄÚÍê³ÉµÄ£¬ÔÚöλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔØʱ¼äÄÚ£¬°´ÉÏÊö±ê×¼µÄ×ÖÊý×÷ÎÄÄá°Âú·Ö¡±ÊǴ´ÂÓÐÓàµÄ£¬ÊÂʵ˵Ã÷Ò»ÇУ¬ÎÒµÄÖî¶àÕ½ÓÑ£¬°üÀ¨Ç°ÃæÌá¼°µÄViolet£¬´ÓÀ´¶¼ÊÇ¿¿¡°5²½Ò»É±¡±£¬¡°3²½Ò»Ç¹¡±£¬(500×Ö×óÓÒISSUE£¬300×Ö×óÓÒARGUMENT)£¬ÔÚ4£¬6¼¶´Ê»ã·¶Î§ÄÚÎÈÄÃ5·Ö¡ª¡ª6·Ö£¬¿É¼ûÒ»°ß¡£²»ÏàÐŵĿ¼ÉúÓ¦¸Ã×Ô¼ºÔÚPP2¡¢PP3µÄ×÷ÎÄÄ£¿¼ÖÐÇ×ÉíÌåÑ飬ÎÒ»áÔÚ×îºóÍƼö´ó¼ÒÒ»¸öÐÐÖ®ÓÐЧµÄ¿ìËÙÁ·Ï°×÷ÎÄËٶȺÍÖÊÁ¿¡°Ç¹ÊÖ×÷ÎÄËÙ³ÉѵÁ··¨¡±£¬ÎÒÃÇÕâÒ»±²³ÆΪ¡°ÌæÉíɱÊÖ¡±µÄÈ˶¼ÊÇÕâÑùÁ·³öÀ´µÄ¡£ ¡¡¡¡17. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper. ¡¡¡¡"Walnut Groves town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABCs fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ--which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks--has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last years town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZs performance." ¡¡¡¡(·¶ÎÄ) ¡¡¡¡The argument is not well reasoned at all, and it might be wise for Walnut Groves town council to turn to ABC Disposal. ¡¡¡¡To begin with, despite EZs weekly working frequency is as twice as ABCs, yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the "advantage" is necessary and fictional. For instance, if the towns garbage amount is under a particularly lower scale, which merely reaches the quantity of once disposal from ABC and hence the relatively once more from EZ is just a futile plethora. Also, even if twice disposal is applicable, it still deserves to doubt whether most citizens would like usual to choose EZ when taking into account the price of its service has been increased by $500 a month. Most citizens is highly possible to pick up a company that can offer best services while calling for relatively little money, for saving the extra $500, which to some extent is dispensable, I think, most citizens can cope with some easily handled trash with their own methods instead of singly relying on the disposal company. ¡¡¡¡And another crucial point I cast great discretion on is whether the survey made last year is the persuasive reflection of the whole citizens actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the surveys sampling size and accordingly the ultimate respondents echoing the questions. Visualize the citizens of Walnut town are no less than 500 thousands, but ironically only the 5 hundred ones have the fortune to be asked the question and in the end the real available records making some senses are less than the 10% of the interviewers, namely the upper limit is only 50 people. Let alone whether these answers have the widely applicable representative, just judging about the number of respondents we can have justifiable rights to disregard the validity of this survey. ¡¡¡¡Almost to forget to point out, that the freshly ordered 20 trucks of EZ cannot add another ponderous stake onto the balance, on the contrary, it might exacerbate the impressions of EZ in peoples mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the companys property, and to take this disburse back the company must put some additional measures for compensation, thereby increasing the fees can lead the citizens to obtain the most strong conviction of loading the economic debt onto their shoulders, which finally ruins the tiny fantasy prone to the EZ. ¡¡¡¡So the arguers recommendation is just nothing but a cheap propaganda to throw to the vast residents a deceptive illusion. I believe, in general, any one having look through these vulgar tricks full of vague information and implicit causal claims like me would be likely to accept the town councils decision, after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests. (458 words) ¡¡¡¡µãÆÀ£ºÕâƪÎÄÕ³¹µ×¾ÀÕýÁËÉÏÊö²¡ÀúÎĵÄȱµã£¬¿ªÍ·¼ò¶ÌÓÐÁ¦£¬×¼È·»ØÓ¦£¬ÖмäÕýÎÄÂÛÊö¹ý¶È×ÔÈ»£¬ÖµµÃ½è¼ø£¬ÁíÍâ½áβҲ°ÚÍÑÁËÔÏȵġ°¸Ä´í½¨Ò顱£¬Óá°·í´Ì¡±µÄ¿ÚÎÇÉÁËÖ÷Ìâ¡£´ó¼ÒÒ»¶¨ÒªÖØÊÓÕâ¸öÎÊÌ⣬ÒòΪÕâʵÔÚÊǸö¡°³ÔÁ¦²»Ìֺá±µÄÊ£¬¶øÇÒÕâÑùµÄÈË»¹Õæ²»ÉÙ£¬ÏÂÃæÔÙ¿´Ò»ÀýÀ´×ÔÂú·ÖÍøµÄÏ°×÷£¬½«ÕâÖÖ¡°Ã«²¡¡±Éý»ªµ½Á˼«ÖÁ¡£ ¡¡¡¡145.A new study collected data that shows that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. It is well known that many people who snore also stop breathing frequently during the night for a few seconds, a condition called sleep apnea. The interruption of breathing wakes the person¡ªoften so briefly that the waking goes unnoticed--and can leave the person too tired during the day to exercise. Anyone who snores, therefore, should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more. ¡¡¡¡(²¡ÀúÎÄ) ¡¡¡¡In this argument, the arguer make a proposal that anyone who snores should try to eat less than the average person and to exercise more. In order to prove his claims, a new study collected data has been quoted that people who snore are more likely to gain weight than are people who do not snore. in addition, the arguer also shows a common sense to support the conclusion, which says that sleep apnea, a condition caused by snore, can wakes the sleeping person often and leave him too tired to exercise during the day. ¡¡¡¡The explanation of the conclusion sounds quite plausible at the first glance, but after pondering deeply upon the matter, we may find that the arguer fails to build up a causal relationship between the sentific study and the the conclusion as presented above, furthermore, this argument also suffers from critical logical confusion, How can the person who is too tired to exercise join even more aerobic activities during the day? To reveal the flaws of the argument more clearly, let us detail the examination. ¡¡¡¡To begin with, one major assumption in short of legitimacy is the relationship claimsed between the propensity of weight-gaining among the snores and the method to handle this problem, which is simply described as "eating less". However, why those people who snore are more likely to gain weight still remain unknown, how can the arguer gratuitously give the recommendation that the anyone who snores should try to eat less? there may be other ways to give the explanation of this problem, the most persuasive one is that the fat might cause by the hormone secreted by a kind of glands. When people are snoring, means, under the condition called sleep apnea, the amount of hormone being secreted may exceed or less than, the normal one, which keeps the metabolism speed of the human body. Therefore, it is reasonable to imagine that the problem would even get worse after adopting the argers suggestion that anyone who snores should eat less than the average person. ¡¡¡¡In addition, the arguers conclusion that more excercises should be taken by the those who snore is seriously undermined by the common sense given in the argument, which points out the sleep apnea caused by snore results in the tiredness of the snorer during the day. Can such a tired person take a lot of exercisers besides his work or study? the answer is obviously seem. anyone who has basic logical-deducing ability would see the critical flaw in the argument. ¡¡¡¡In sum, unless the reslut of a further scientific study can demonstrate that the weight-gaining propensity among the snorers is caused by lacking of excercise and can be solved by eating less, the arguers conclusion about this medical issue is unfounded.(463 words) ¡¡¡¡ÆÀ×¢£º¿ªÍ·Á½¶Î×÷Õßʲô¶¼Ã»Ì¸£¬¾Í¹éÄÉÁËÂ۾ݽáÂÛÓÃÁËÒ»¶ÎºÄÈ¥100¶à×Ö£¬¾ÓÈ»»¹²»¹ýñ«£¬ÓÖ¶ÀÅüÒ»¶Î¾ÍΪÁË˵Ã÷ËüÓÐÎÊÌ⣬ÓÖÊǼ¸Ê®×Ö£¬¼ÓÉϽá⣬·ÇÖ÷Ìå¹²ºÄÈ¥200¶à×Ö£¬½Ó½üÈ«ÎÄÒ»°ë£¬ÕâÑùµÄıƪ²¼¾ÖʵÔÚÈÃÈË¡°Ðĺ®¡±¡£¿É¼û×÷ÕßûÓÐË¿ºÁд×÷¡°½á¹¹ÐÔ¡±µÄ֪ʶ£¬Íêȫƾ½è×Ô¼ºµÄ¡°Ò»ÏàÇéÔ¸¡±ÔÚ¡°¶¶°ü¸¤¡±¡£¶øÏÂÃæµÄ·¶Îľ¡¹Ü¿ªÍ·Ò²×÷Á˸ÅÀ¨£¬µ«ÊÇ¡°µãµ½¼´Ö¹¡±£¬½«ÎÄÕµÄÖÐÐÄÈ«²¿ÆËÔÚÅú²µÂÛÖ¤ÉÏ£¬²¢ÇÒ¡°Ö÷´Î·ÖÃ÷¡±£¬´Ó¶ø±£Ö¤ÁËÁ¼ºÃµÄ¡°½á¹¹Ðµ÷ÐÔ¡±£¬Çë¶ÁÕßÆ·Æ·¡£ ¡¡¡¡(·¶ÎÄ) ¡¡¡¡The argument astonishingly deduces a conclusion of the easiness to get fatter for the particular group of people who snore at sleep, and accordingly recommends eating less and strengthening the intense of exercises to avoid such trend. While the arguer established his demonstration on the tenable basis of a well-known discovery accepted by public, this argument, however, seems to me a wholly ramshackle one needed to scrutiny. ¡¡¡¡To begin with, what I cannot make clear since now is the leap from the mere fact of lacking exercise to the aptness for gaining weight, which sounds no necessary cause-and-effect relationship between them. It might be true of the evidence the arguer takes out to show that sleep apnea can interrupt the normal sleeping tempo and hence results the over exhaustion at diurnal work, which obliquely influence the exercises necessarily for these people. The extent of the arguers inference can only reach this level, to further exploit the aftermath concerning the putting on weight still waits for more information, such as the authoritative report proving such potential nexus, or otherwise, the arguer is only resting the assertion on a gratuitous assumption. ¡¡¡¡Another obvious cynosure we facilely notice is the recommendation of eating less to relieve the inevitable current for weight growing, which is more unsubstantial. In the whole article, the arguers claim range only spread to the layer of lacking exercises, referring to the habits of diets is a sudden idea out of any sign predicted, thus acts the role of invalid deduction. Also, the arguer presumptuously holds the conviction of "any" person who snores, ought to take the measure for stint eating, which works against commonsensical knowledge of treating different people by choosing different remedies, at all no two individuals are totally equivalent. Once escaping the condition of eluding such confusion, we are able to, too, recognize the suggestion of recommending those peoples joining more exercises are, on the contrary, counterproductive. Even if the prerequisites of peoples weight problem actually stems from this very case of fatigue, then more activities mean more fatigue at daily time enjoyed by them, and the circulation undeniably switches to the opposite side. ¡¡¡¡To sum up, starting from the ridiculous basement to the final fallacious recommendation, the arguer cursorily treat the gross deduction process, and add additional vulnerable announcement in the brittle body of the argument, which ultimately results the further discretion directly leads to its destiny of rebuff. (403 words) |
Ìý¿Î±Ê¼Ç--ÔĶÁ(2)
ÍøÂç×ÊÔ´ Ãâ·ÑöλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØÍø/2009-01-16
Ïà¹Ø»°Ìâ/
ÁìÏÞʱ´ó¶îÓÅ»Ýȯ,Ïí±¾Õ¾Õý°æöλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔØöλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØ!
ÓÅ»ÝȯÁìÈ¡ºó72СʱÄÚÓÐЧ£¬10ÍòÖÖ×îÐÂöλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔØ¿¼Ö¤Ààµç×Ó´òÓ¡öλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØÈÎÄãÑ¡¡£º¸ÇÈ«¹ú500ÓàËùԺУöλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØöλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔؿΡ¢200¶àÖÖÖ°Òµ×ʸñöλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔØ¡¢1100¶àÖÖ¾µä½Ì²Ä£¬²úÆ·ÀàÐÍ°üº¬µç×ÓÊé¡¢Ìâ¿â¡¢È«Ì×öλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØÒÔ¼°ÊÓƵ£¬ÎÞÂÛÄúÊÇöλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔظ´Ï°¡¢¿¼Ö¤Ë¢Ì⣬»¹ÊÇ¿¼Ç°³å´ÌµÈ£¬²»Í¬ÀàÐ͵IJúÆ·¿ÉÂú×ãÄúѧϰÉϵIJ»Í¬ÐèÇó¡£ ...öλÔÓéÀֵǼÈë¿ÚÏÂÔØÓÅ»Ýȯ ±¾Õ¾Ð¡±à FreeÒ¼°Û·ÖѧϰÍø 2022-09-19