Can you help correct this graph-based writing task? Please...

[Raymott]

Raymott:
There's no way you can make that assumption from this data, even if it did turn out to be true. You only have two countries to compare. The difference could be for any number of reasons.


1. Well, apart from any scientific evidence, common sense wouldn’t rule out that surmise. It’s something believable and incredibly simple:

Science deals with facts, not with what can't be ruled out by common sense and what is believable or what is incredibly simple.
You don't have to believe me, of course.

2.
So, agricultural land does need more water and this fact forms a valid proposition in my sentence.
You cannot state as fact something that you think might as well be right. Nor do you go to other encyclopedias to get results when you are supposed to be making inferences from the graphs.
It's obvious you are not scientifically trained, and this is why I'm telling you these things.

3. The person posting the question is responsible for the validity, reliability, accuracy, precision, and the philosophy lying behind the post. We don’t know; working on the data may be an assignment for the sender, and working outside of its framework may not be expedient.
He gave us the task, and the raw material: Here is the task description again:
"The graph and table below give information about water use worldwide and water consumption in two different countries. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant."
There is no request for explanation or surmising. The task is to describe the importance features of the graph and the table.

And you said “you only have two countries to compare”, but my estimation was mostly based on the graph which represents a global growth and doesn’t have much to do with the table.
You made the statement:
"-The larger agricultural land a country has, the greater water reservoirs it will use/need."
You base this on statistics from two countries. That's an invalid generalisation. You can say "The larger country in this study uses the larger amount of water".

By the way, the data leads us me to conclude what I concluded. We do need research to prove that, yet we have to work within the range that the data has defined. Based on the data, my surmise is absolutely right.
No it isn't.
Are you saying that if you were only given the results for Brazil, you could state: "These figures show that the amount of irrigated land that a country has is 151 times its population?

R.

[cherry88cn]

Raymott:
I have been generally told that the assumption is not necessary in this kind of writing task...I was trying to find the connection between these 2 graphs because I thought there may be a reason for putting them together. However, it seems the connection I try to describe is quite unsure and could easily be thought to a conclusion. That is not the consequence I wanted. So I don't know how to end after I have finished describing graph1 and graph2...

[chester_100]

"Steady increase" is not an English term that I would use to describe these graphs.
[/SIZE]

You claim that “steady increase” is not an English collocation?
This collocation is frequently used in research and particularly to refer to that sort of shape.


The act of increasing: a steady increase in temperature.

http://www.answers.com/topic/increase

[chester_100]

1. Well, apart from any scientific evidence, common sense wouldn’t rule out that surmise. It’s something believable and incredibly simple:

Science deals with facts, not with what can't be ruled out by common sense and what is believable or what is incredibly simple.
You don't have to believe me, of course.

-I think you missed the point of my sentence; I said: “APART FROM ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE”,and you tell me “science deals with facts”. I wasn’t talking about science.

****

2. So, agricultural land does need more water and this fact forms a valid proposition in my sentence.


You cannot state as fact something that you think might as well be right. Nor do you go to other encyclopedias to get results when you are supposed to be making inferences from the graphs.
It's obvious you are not scientifically trained, and this is why I'm telling you these things.

Seriously speaking, I don’t understand what you’re talking about:
When I was dealing with the graph, you said we can’t rely on its information, and now that I’ve come up with scientific evidence which doesn’t have much to do with the graph, quite paradoxically, you say we have to make inferences about the graphs.
I would doubtlessly call that behavior “confusion of direction”, and, honestly speaking, I’ve never known a “well
scientifically trained person” who acts like that.

You cannot state as fact something that you think might as well be right.

I don’t think what I say is right, I’m invariably certain that it’s right. And the universally accepted sources prove my argument. I can give you even more information proving my inference, if you like.

****

He gave us the task, and the raw material: Here is the task description again:
"The graph and table below give information about water use worldwide and water consumption in two different countries. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant."
There is no request for explanation or surmising. The task is to describe the importance features of the graph and the table.

herry88cn:
"I was trying to find the connection between these 2 graphs because I thought there may be a reason for putting them together. However, it seems the connection I try to describe is quite unsure and could easily be thought to a conclusion. That is not the consequence I wanted. So I don't know how to end after I have finished describing graph1 and graph2...".

As herry88cn has explained, we need to draw a conclusion. Students who are expected to describe graphs and such sorts of things have already been taught how to draw conclusion. And, of course, description without conclusion sounds to be senseless.

****

And you said “you only have two countries to compare”, but my estimation was mostly based on the graph which represents a global growth and doesn’t have much to do with the table.


You made the statement:
"-The larger agricultural land a country has, the greater water reservoirs it will use/need."
You base this on statistics from two countries. That's an invalid generalisation. You can say "The larger country in this study uses the larger amount of water".

-The graph does make a generalization. For more information read the following post.



Raymott, your points (except that sentence of herry88cn you corrected), so far, haven’t contributed anything to the student’s problem. His situation was already confused and you seem to have added insult to injury. He may end with an “F”.
His teacher won’t care much about scientific investigation while scoring the poor students.

CH

[chester_100]

Raymott, you haven’t provided us with any empirically verifiable information, so we can’t deem your method scientific.
I believe REALITY lies in deeds, not words; I’m not personally interested in philosophizing. So give me evidence!


I. I suggest you take a closer look at the graph. It represents the GLOBAL WATER USE (CONSUMPTION) which, as the title suggests, is a universal (global, general) fact. It is a generalization; the table shows us just TWO EXAMPLES of that generalization.
It’s put there to give the student an opportunity to make inferences from the data. We need to trust the data because apparently it’s been the result of experimentation. If you want to replicate the research to confirm its validity and accuracy, you can do it! And tell us whether it works or not.
But a person who has been scientifically trained, the right way, of course, would first check factual information, knowing the classical data collection procedures. I have no reason to believe what you want us to believe because it’s not compatible with research procedures.


II. Common sense and logic help us form a theory and when we put the theory into action
We EXPERIENCE it. The person watering the flowers can feel everything through is sensory perception: IT’S REAL and undeniable.
So you give me real arguments too. Something that can be put into practice.

1. A flower needs one glass of water a day (or just any amount of water necessary for its survival).
2. I have three flowers, each of which is put in a separate vase.
3. Totally I’ll need three glasses of water (or just any amount of water necessary for one flower to survive multiplied by 3) to water them all.
4. If I had two flowers, I’d need just two glasses of water. So:
5. The more flowers one possesses, the more amount of water he/she will need.


III. You even tend to deny one of the most important steps of the experimental method of research which is the review of literature.
No, Raymott, I’ve been trained so well to detect unscientific parts of a person’s words.
As you see, I’ve come up with proof, scientific evidence, sound arguments, a simple experiment (flowers) that you carry out at home, and yet you haven’t provided us with any of theses things.
I have enough evidence to believe that your method is not exactly scientific.


Bye,

Chester,

[Raymott]

[QUOTE=chester_100;526611]
You claim that “steady increase” is not an English collocation?
No, I didn't say that. Read it again.

Why do you use such large type so that your messages have to go over three separate messages and several pages?

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by Raymott
Raymott, you haven’t provided us with any empirically verifiable information, so we can’t deem your method scientific.
I believe REALITY lies in deeds, not words; I’m not personally interested in philosophizing. So give me evidence!
What do want evidence for? I've already given the evidence that you are wrong.

III. You even tend to deny one of the most important steps of the experimental method of research which is the review of literature.

A review of the literature is is not indicated in a simple test like this. The OP was given a graph and a table. He cannot claim as facts, opinions that are not supported by the chart and the table. No doubt that is what the test is for. I am trying to help him by warning him against making unscientific claims from the data given. If the task were "Look at this graph and table then give any opinions you like about the possible usage of water in these two countries", then I would have no argument with you.

[chester_100]

You claim that “steady increase” is not an English collocation?


No, I didn't say that. Read it again.


Ok.


Why do you use such large type so that your messages have to go over three separate messages and several pages?

When the resolution is 1088*612 the fontsize really looks small. Plus, it would be a good idea to allocate a post just to one specific subject to promote its legibility.



Raymott, you haven’t provided us with any empirically verifiable information, so we can’t deem your method scientific.
I believe REALITY lies in deeds, not words; I’m not personally interested in philosophizing. So give me evidence!


What do want evidence for? I've already given the evidence that you are wrong.

You haven’t. By “evidence” I mean a fact proved by the scientific community.

III. You even tend to deny one of the most important steps of the experimental method of research which is the review of literature.

A review of the literature is is not indicated in a simple test like this. The OP was given a graph and a table. He cannot claim as facts, opinions that are not supported by the chart and the table. No doubt that is what the test is for. I am trying to help him by warning him against making unscientific claims from the data given. If the task were "Look at this graph and table then give any opinions you like about the possible usage of water in these two countries", then I would have no argument with you.

It is a simple task. But according to the usual arrangement of the courses in the English teaching curriculum, such a course serves as a prerequisite to academic writing in which the students will be expected to know the principles of research.

Chester

[Raymott]

Raymott:
I have been generally told that the assumption is not necessary in this kind of writing task...I was trying to find the connection between these 2 graphs because I thought there may be a reason for putting them together. However, it seems the connection I try to describe is quite unsure and could easily be thought to a conclusion. That is not the consequence I wanted. So I don't know how to end after I have finished describing graph1 and graph2...

You could do what I suggested and write something like: "A connection between the table and the graph could be made by proposing that ....
[add here any of the conclusions you want]. Then finish by saying, "however, none of these propositions is necessarily proven by the data given".