Argument 高分范文对比1
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
题目分析：
论据，结论分析：
作者的论据有：
1. Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles by ten miles per hour
2. the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent
3. the speed limit in Elmsford remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period
结论是：if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase
先分析论据，论证本身的问题（但这并不是ETS强调的入手点）
对论据２，可以质疑它的基数是否足够大，对于结论可以质疑要求市民进行campaign这样的活动是否可取．
现在再来看看最重要的the line of reasoning!
l 论据１，２之间作者建立了因果关系，特别注意开头的six month ago，那么我们就可以攻击它的时序性因果错误，找出他因，削弱论据１，２之间的因果联系．
l 论据３和论据１，２之间建立的是类比关系，不用多说，错误类比．
l 另外，研究作者由论据１，２，３推出结论的过程，即使１，２，３成立，那么是否还忽略了其他导致交通事故的原因？是否限速就一定能够减少交通事故？等等．
下面是范文分析：
6分：
The argument 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 (这里省略higher)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.（用了seem实际上就是说not logical）(语言上，可以看出长短句的结合非常好，复述句是结构很好的长句，但是指明逻辑错误的句子短，醒目，并且就在文章开头，开门见山！使用make a comparison of sth. with sth.来提示这个类比的关系，同时therefore和subsequently指示出了因果关系)
开头简练，只用了６０个词，就复述了原文的重点并指出了其逻辑错误．最值得学习的地方是作者用一句话不但表达了原文论据间建立的因果关系，还表达了两个town之间的类比关系，合理的改写，而不是重抄原文．
However,（进行转折，合理衔接，下面进入了论述，这就是所谓的clear transition） the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less (这个就是所谓的minor grammar error) reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville,(车况的不同) or that the age bracket（年龄限制） of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. （驾驶者本身的情况不同） It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. （道路状况的不同） Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.（首先上来攻击类比的问题，其实可以看出来，作者根本没有用什么高深的逻辑学知识，就是以交通事故为核心，找出两个城镇在交通状况，驾驶员年龄以及车况这三个方面的不同，从而攻击原文作者在这里进行的类比．我的收获是，不是必须用摸版在这里写，只要层次分明的详细描述这两个town的区别就可以，这样的语言写的比较具体，否则搬摸版上来，显得比较抽象和＂虚＂）
另外其实可以看出作者严密的逻辑思维，考虑到交通问题，作者正好从这三方面入手，交通问题涉及的驾驶者，车辆，道路（其实还有作者忽视的一方面，那就是交通管理部门）．
A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. （时间不够长也不能急于下结论，同时削弱两者的因果联系）（语言上，这里其实并没有过渡，也许这一点并不影响６分的得分吧．） It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, （驾驶的天气情况）when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. Again, the demographics of the population are important. （人口数量问题，就是前面分析题目时提到的基数问题） It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people in Forestville than there were six months ago? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, (把人口增加和交通事故增多联系起来，削弱了速度限制和交通事故增加的因果关系)and not due to the increased speed limits. Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, （驾驶时间）such as early in the morning, or during twilight. Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.（批驳忽略他因的错误，这里的批驳还建立在两者对比的基础上，也就是说作者的批驳是建立在原文作者的这个错误类比的基础上，因为他认为这个类比是一个核心的错误．这就是官方说明里指出的：identifying a central flaw in the argument and developing that critique extensively）
Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.(结尾段改写开头段提出逻辑错误那句话，并且给出了作者的意见．即官方说明里说的：what change in the argument would make the reasoning more sound.)
全文共５１４词．
COMMENTARY
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical." It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis. Alternatives mentioned are that
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might
contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining
that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
(从这里可以看出阅卷者更注意的是你给出的他因和alternative explanations.)
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay. Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation. For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax. The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique. (这里我们也应该可以解读出什么是所谓的minor flaws)This is an impressive 6 paper.
________________________________________
NO.2
5分：
The argument above presents a sound case for arguing that if the region of Forestville wants to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should consider reducing the speed limit to what it was before the increase in speed limit took place 6 months previously. However, there are some intermediate steps （中间步骤）that one could take before jumping to the conclusion that reducing the speed limit is the only way in which traffic accidents can be reduced.（这里的缺点就是没有提出核心的类比部分）（这两篇文章的共性就是都首先指出了作者的结论！）
First of all, I would examine the actual number of traffic accidents that occurred before and after the speed limit increase and compare this to the size of the region and its driving population. （这里一样考虑的是人口数量，同时本文的作者还注意到了交通事故的数量的基数问题，就像我刚才在题目分析里指出的．）For example, if the Forestville region's driving population is 1 million people, and the traffic accidents for a 6-month period before the speed increase totaled 100, then the 15% increase would amount to an additional 16 traffic accidents, or 116 total. For a population of 1 million, there may be other solutions to this increase besides reducing the speed limit to what it was. (The comparison to the region of Elmsford would only be helpful if the regions driving demography is comparable in terms of size and scope.) A public education campaign emphasizing driver safety and safe driving techniques may suffice to reduce the number of traffic accidents. Especially considering that if the number of accidents relative to the population is somewhat small, it is a fairly safe driving population anyway.（这就是质疑结论的合理性）
In addition, I would consider lengthening the time of the study. Six months may be a relatively short period of time for which to study the rate of traffic accidents. Upon a closer examination of when the accidents occurred, one might ascertain that most of the driving accidents occurred within a month of raising the speed limit, but that there have been relatively few additional accidents since that first phase-in period. Lengthening the study to a one-year period would help adjust for any untypical statistics and paint a more accurate picture of the long-term affects of the speed limit increase.（关于调查时间的问题，指出调查的时间不够长使得得到的结论不可信）
I would also examine what else was occurring in the region during the period of the study. For example, was there a major highway construction project happening during this time which would have added to the unsafe nature of raod travel?（路况问题） Are there any alternative explanations for why the increase in traffic accidents could have occurred, or is the increase in speed limit the sole variable? Looking at the type of accidents that occurred, I would examine whether these are the types of car accidents one would expect from traveling at a faster speed to corroborate the cause and effect relationship.（这才是真正的实质，并不是所有的交通事故都是由超速引起的，这里削弱了速度限制和交通事故的联系）
COMMENTARY
As in the sample 6 essay, this writer sees some logic in assuming a connection between the higher speed limit in Forestville and the increase in auto accidents. Unlike the sample 6 essay, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed. The writer makes these points in the critique:
-- A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in
accidents is not as significant as it might seem.
-- A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the
problem.
-- A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major
conclusions.
-- Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.
Although each of these points is developed and sensibly supported, the critique is not sufficiently full to warrant a score of 6. The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions. The occasional flaws (e.g., the somewhat garbled syntax in paragraph 3: ".??爐ime for which to study the rate???") do not detract from the overall strong quality of the essay. For all of these reasons, this critique is strong but not outstanding, and thus merits a score of 5.
对比这两篇文章我发现：
１． 两篇文章的开头都不是很罗嗦，都重述了原文作者的结论，都对原文的论据进行了分析．５分作文的缺陷是复述的时候没有抓住类比这个错误的核心，同时复述的语言不算简练和精彩．
２． ６分作文的点比较多，显得比较丰富，有比较简略的一句带过的几点，也有比较详细说明的两点，显得详略得当，但是５分作文就显得虽然都说的比较详细，但觉得明显漏掉了一些要点．这是因为有些点过于详细，才使得没有时间提到其他的要点！
３． 最重要的一点，５分作文更多的是孤立的看待了作者的论据，没有把分析和原文作者的推理的思路联系起来，质疑的更多是论据和结论的本身，忽视了the line of reasoning,而６分作文几乎都是围绕着作者的思路来批驳的．
４． 两篇范文都从不同角度削弱了作者建立的因果关系，可以说这应该说是本题的一个得分点．
Argument高分范文对比分析2
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（面积） 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."
题目分析：
论据１：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
论据２：if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland
论据３：If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage（面积） would probably be devoted to athletic fields
论据４：a large majority of our children participate in sports
结论：Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland
分析：
１．从论据１，２到论据３的推理本身就可以质疑，既然５年前决定了不开发，那么必须有充足的理由确定现在的情况发生了改变．否则，不能说现在就必须reconsider this issue
２．论据３的本身推理有错误，没有证据表明学校建成了就no shopping centers or houses can be built there，剩余的能够兴建体育场的面积完全能够保证建立起shopping centers and houses.相反，也许是学校内的建成促进了购物和住房的发展（许多家庭为了孩子上学会在附近阻房子住，刺激两者发展）同时，我们是否有足够的经费建立体育场也是一个疑问．
３．a large majority of our children participate in sports不能说明大家参加的运动都必须在田径[运动]场上进行．也就是说田径场不能适合所有孩子的需要，同样，相对于park, school也不是适合所有市民的需要的．
6、（５９５词）
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.（这种开头可以说是非常详细的复述了原文的内容，并且可以通过黑体的短语看出作者复述的顺序，写了１３７词，这里还没有进入正式的批驳，这是不是可以作为＂开头就要开门见山点题＂这样一个观点的反例呢？）
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,（学生家长方面） a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community,（教师方面） or just a resident of Morganton. （中立方面） Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.（这个并列写的非常的妙，大家一定能体会出来overlook和choose to ignore用在这里有怎么样的含义）作者本段其实在质疑原文作者的立场是否中立，如果不是中立的立场，而是利益涉及的一方，那么以后的论断就很难说服别人．
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.（首先就很明确的把build a school和 a natural parkland完全分离开，使后面原文作者的说法完全被推翻，这可以说是一个核心的问题） While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school.（两者的主要区别） The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community. What interest do they have in a new school? It only means higher taxes for them to pay. They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything. On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.
本段质疑核心的问题！
Another point （自然的过度，没有用first, secondly……）the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes(使．．．．．．合理化) the destruction of the park. What about children who don't play sports? （首先考虑到不是所有的children都会使用运动场） Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything. A playing field is a playing field. Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. （park和运动场的第二个区别） There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports. This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.
The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision. The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would. The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state. Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.（总结，重述，可以发现作者的总结没有丝毫和前面重复的说法，虽然说的是一样的意思！这一个总结段是总结全文的经典！）
COMMENTARY
This outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but do not immediately engage the argument. However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic detail.
（从这句评论我们可以明显感知到评分的核心在后面的分析，关键不是如何开头，关键是如何分析！）
The writer's main rebuttal points out that "using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland." Several subpoints develop this critique, offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantiated assumptions. This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly exposes another piece of faulty reasoning: that using land for athletic fields "rationalizes the destruction of the park."
The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this."
Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard conventions. While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6, this essay demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing. It clearly earns a 6.
________________________________________
5分（全文３７７词）
The author's argument is weak. （本文的开头算是开门见山的分析）Though he believes Scott Woods benefits the community as an undeveloped park, he also thinks a school should be built on it. Obviously the author is not aware of the development that comes with building a school besides the facilities devoted to learning or sports. He does not realize that parking lots will take up a substantial area of property, especially if the school proposed is a high school. We are not given this information, nor the size of the student body that will be attending, nor the population of the city itself, so it is unclear whether the damage will be great or marginal.（质疑了建立学校对public land的影响） For a better argument, the author should consider questions like what sort of natural resources are present on the land that will not remain once the school is built? Are there endangered species whose homes will be lost? And what about digging up the land for water lines? It is doubtful whether the integrity of Scott Woods as natural parkland can be maintained once the land has been developed.（详细分析可能的情况和造成的影响！） It is true that a school would probably not cause as much damage as a shopping center or housing development, but the author must consider whether the costs incurred in losing the park-like aspects of the property are worth developing it, when there could be another, more suitable site.（权衡得失问题！） He should also consider how the city will pay for the property, whether taxes will be raised to compensate for the expense or whether a shopping center will be built somewhere else to raise funds.（建立学校的花费怎么解决？） He has not given any strong reasons for the idea of building a school, including what kind of land the property is, whether it is swampland that will have to be drained or an arid, scrubby lot that will need extensive maintenance to keep up the athletic greens. The author should also consider the opposition, such as the people without children who have no interest in more athletic fields.（这就是也在质疑建立学校对那些没有孩子的人的影响，很明显，学校针对的人群必然小于park针的人群！） He must do a better job of presenting his case, addressing each point named above, for if the land is as much a popular community resource as he implies, he will face a tough time gaining allies to change a park to a school.
COMMENTARY
After describing the argument as "weak," this strong essay goes straight to the heart of the matter: building a school is not (as the argument seems to assume) innocuous; rather, it involves substantial development. The essay identifies several reasons to support this critique. The writer then points to the important questions that must be answered before accepting the proposal. These address
-- the costs versus the benefits of developing Scott Woods
-- the impact of development on Scott Woods
-- the possibility of "another, more suitable site"
The generally thoughtful analysis notes still more flaws in the argument:
-- whether the school is necessary
-- whether the selected site is appropriate
-- whether some groups might oppose the plan
Although detailed and comprehensive, the writer's critique is neither as fully developed nor as tightly organized （关键的问题是没有详细的展开和条理的组织）as a 6 essay. The response exhibits good control of language, although there is some awkward phrasing (e.g., ".??爂aining allies to change a park to a school"). Overall, this essay warrants a score of 5 because it is well developed, clearly organized, and shows 5-level facility with language.
我的收获：
１． 开头段甚至全文的形式对分数不是决定性的，关键在你对这个ARGUMENT本身的分析是否深刻和独到．可以看到，５分的作文全文一大段，也一样不影响拿到５分．
２． 真正的好作文不但找到很多错误，关键是对错误有着详略得当的展开分析，并有着良好的段落组织．
３． 避免与原文的重复！