今天刚收到ETS寄过来的成绩，看到6分的AWA，真是太高兴了。还一直以为是否自己的模版痕迹太露，看来ETS的水平很菜。先谈一下我对ETS的作文评分理解。在网上看到过，一个作文打分有两道关：第一个是E-Rater，是ETS自己特臭美搞出来的一个计算机的评分工具，主要是查拼写、语法还有一些关键词。关键词就是例如：furthermore, thus, in conclusion, based on the assertion that ，之类的承前启后的转接词，还有就是写Argue里面的逻辑错误的关键词，如 insufficient sample fallacy, “after this and therefore because of this” fallacy。E-rater这个傻东西肯定好打发。接下来可就是人来看了。不过，也不用害怕，米国的人很贵，所以ETS也就只能找一些学校里的TA来看。TA通常就是研究生给本课生做助教的人。他们也不愿意看啊，所以也就是一目十行的过，看网上做过这活的哥们说，也就是两分钟一个人。所以，呵呵，模版功效无比。我的情况是由于工作原因，每天都要写一堆英文的邮件，以为自己没有问题，去年没有怎么在意模版，结果就是我去年的AWA只有可怜的4分，percentile只有42％，今年是6，对应的是97％，所以觉得可以来帮助一下曾经和我一样痛苦的人。首先，感谢我的太太。因为我的模版是她编的，我提前10天开始看作文。总共写过三个issue, 三个argue。Issue的题目倒是全部看了一遍，argue看了十个就没时间了，就索性不看了。我觉得我的主要发现是在argue上，我的argue模版的第二段，当然是每一个argue题目都适用。关键是第三段，也就是指出具体的逻辑错误，我以为无论是那一种逻辑错误，都可“以不变应万变”的套路去应对。自己感觉，写作文的重点就是不要觉得车轱辘话多，翻过来，覆过去，结果就400字以上了。呵呵，现在写申请的essay，可是没有模版可以套了。闲话一堆，下面是我的模版。其实也就是我自己练习写的一篇issue, 一篇argue，去掉具体内容，剩下的废话就是模版。呵呵，要知道，光是每个模版就有差不多300字，那么写上400字是轻而易举的了。
Issue：
The rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity*. Because people everywhere are beginning to want the same products and services, regional differences are rapidly disappearing.”
* homogeneity: sameness, similarity
Whether the rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity is a broadly debated topic that attracted many attentions. While it is true that in some circumstances that because people everywhere are beginning to want the same products and services, regional differences are rapidly disappearing, in other instances, however, the argument may not be valid. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I agree that the rise of multinational corporations is not leading to global homogeneity.
First of all, regional differences are reflected more by the different culture, different building style and history more by the same products and services. The example can be found in the case that when one drinks Coke at the street corner of Roma and Beijing, he can easily distinguish the difference between Beijing and Roma. Under this circumstance, it is obvious that the rise of multinational corporations will not diminish the regional difference.
In addition, while multinational corporations enter different regions, the corporations usually adjust their products to meet the taste of the local people. The reason is not far to see from the example of that the languages of Windows, an operation system produced by Microsoft, vary from country to country. To illustrate, we may consider that Microsoft produced different Windows to meet the distinct requirement of each region. Thus, the rise of multinational corporations is not leading to global homogeneity.
Finally, during the multinational corporation enter the global market, these corporations not only bring the products and services to the regions, but also introduce the regional differences to the world. For example, one can feel the culture difference of Germany and Japanese by their different car models. Some might argue that the more and more similar posters are hanging on the street in the different regions. However, this argument alone can hardly support the conclusion that the rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity. In fact, these cases are rare and therefore are too weak to make this conclusion. When the advantages and disadvantages are carefully examined, the most striking conclusion is that the rise of multinational corporations is not leading to global homogeneity.
In conclusion, it is likely that the rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity in little extent. However, considering the above presented reasons, we may safely to draw the conclusion that the rise of multinational corporations is not leading to global homogeneity
Argue:
“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”
The author in this argument is trying to establish that Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. This conclusion is based on the assertion that Apogee Company’s more profit in the past years was simply caused by operating in one location. To support this conclusion, the author reasons that such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs. In addition, he assumes that centralization would help the company maintain better supervision of all employees. Closely examining the author’s logic and reasoning, we find that neither of these reasons provides sufficient support for the conclusion and this argument suffers two serious logical flaws.
First of all, this argument relies on a groundless assumption that the reason why Apogee Company is less profitable than before is because it was operated in multiple locations.
However, no evidence stated in the report supports this crucial assumption. There are many other factors that could have caused or contributed to the result that the Apogee Company is less profitable. It is possible that the competitors of Apogee Company are stronger than past; it is also possible that the slowdown of the overall economical environment have caused the less profitability on today than past. Any of these scenarios, if true, would show that Apogee Company’s poor financial performance is not due to the multi- location operation. Therefore, without ruling out other factors or presenting stronger evidence, the author cannot conclusively assert that Apogee should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location,
Second, the author commits the “after this and therefore because of this” fallacy where the author assumes that because the poor financial performance occurred after the Apogee Company conducted its operation from more than one location, the multi-location operation was responsible for the poor financial performance. The statistical relationship between the poor financial performance and multi-location operation can not necessarily establish the causality between Apogee Company’s poor financial performance and its multi location operation. In fact, the author obviously ignored the possibility of other alternative factors such as the price increase of raw materials, or the extra expense for the construction of new factory, which may contribute to the Apogee Company’s poor financial performance. It may be only a coincidence that the poor financial performance happened after Apogee Company moved from one location operation to multi-location operation. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to the relation between poor financial performance and multi- location operation, this assumption is in question and can not be accepted.
In conclusion, this argument is ineffective because the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes. The author could strengthen the conclusion that Apogee Company should close its field offices and conducts all its operation in single location by demonstrating that the poor financial performance was a result of multi-location operation.
