分页标题
2011-07-20 17:49:00   来源：网络整理    双击单词自动翻译

　　The essay's insightful critique targets several instances of unsound reasoning in the argument:

　　-- that the argument identifies academic achievements in only two departments;

　　-- that publications and research prove little about the quality of teaching at Claria; and

　　-- that the student employment statistic lacks specificity and may be entirely bogus.

　　The writer probes each questionable assumption and offers alternative explanations, pointing out, for instance, that invitations for faculty to teach elsewhere may have been purposely arranged in order to temporarily remove them from campus and that the employed students may be "flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets."

　　In addition, the response perceptively analyzes many features -- omitted by the argument -- that could more convincingly make the case that Claria is "the obvious choice."

　　The essay suggests that the search for a quality education would, at least, need to investigate the teaching strengths of the faculty; ideally one would also ask about research facilities, the university's physical plant, availability of classes, even parking arrangements!

　　Although the fourth paragraph ("What about that 75% employment record?") interrupts this discussion, the essay is, on the whole, logically and effectively organized.

　　Each paragraph develops the central premise: that the argument is uncompelling because it fails to use more valid indices of educational quality.

　　The writing is succinct, graceful, and virtually error-free, distinguished by impressive diction ("kudos," "laudable," "engineered," "entice"), as well as syntactic sophistication.

　　For all of these reasons, the essay earns a 6

　　(责任编辑 陈奕璇)