arg60第一次写，很是忐忑啊
This argument’s conclusion is that a increased demand for heating oil is needed. To support this conclusion, the argument suggests three reasons: (1) region in the northeastern United States experience 90 days below normal temperatures; (2) many new homes are being built in this region; (3) forecasters predict that cold weather will continue for several years. Close scrutiny of these reasons, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.First, though this region will suffer 90 days with below-normal temperature, it doesn’t mean that the temperature is low enough to use heating oil for warming up. Perhaps the temperature is just a little below the normal temperature and people don’t need oil for heating since it’s not very cold. I n short, without suggesting that these 90 days’ temperature are low enough for using heating oil, the argument cannot convince me that people will have a increasing need for the heating oil.
Secondly, the argument concludes based on a known correlation between increasing need for heating oil and ascending house being built. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps some people building house in this region spend little time in these houses only when the weather is warm, will they come back to the house for a summer vacation. What’s more the argument can’t assure population will still increase in the future in this region, because people may leave this area for this very cold weather they can’t stand.
Thirdly, weather pattern in this region will change during these years. Perhaps the weather become warmer because of the global warming and people here won’t need the heating oil for warm any more. Or perhaps the weather becomes even colder than before and the heating oil cannot meet the need for warm for their low efficiency. So the argument can’t make such an infer since weather may fluctuate during these years and we are not able to predict it precisely.
Finally, even assuming all the reasons suggested are real and authentic, the argument still can’t make such a conclusion since with the development of technology, maybe there will have a better substitute of heating oil which is more friendly environmental and cheaper. As a result, the need for heating oil will, on the contrary, decrease.
In sum, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, this argument must provide more accurate evidence about the temperature to reinforce the severe weather in this region. What’s more the argument should suggest that heating oil is the only accessible way to get warm in this area, and make sure that cold weather pattern in this region will not change violently in the future, and also guarantee that the population will at least stay the situation now at and won’t decrease.
是写的太水，都没人愿意评论一下么:funk: 你排版好点会屎啊。。。
第一段可以多攻击几个气温相关问题。below average, 90天, forecast。
第二段没攻击到点上，oil是traditional的，而房子是新的。本论坛应该有个excel的新旧A对照，里面有提纲，我觉得还行。网上各种提纲都有，你能看看不。
展开不够，懒得解释了，看我写的总结。 Basilisk 发表于 2012-10-9 05:05 static/image/common/back.gif
你排版好点会屎啊。。。
第一段可以多攻击几个气温相关问题。below average, 90天, forecast。
第二段没攻 ...
{:3_58:} 被水了~~~~TOT 能不能献给个题目先？这题目的写作指导 都有好几个吧
页:
[1]