大家来砍字咯 求助贴~

huhulaee8UID: 2864855

TOPIC: ARGUMENT218 - The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of Hyper-Go Toy Company.
"Last year, sales of our Fierce Fighter toy airplane declined sharply, even though the toy had been a top seller for three years. Our customer surveys show that parents are now more worried about youthful violence and are concerned about better education for their children. Therefore, to maintain profits we should discontinue all our action toys and focus exclusively on a new line of educational toys. Several other toy companies have already begun marketing educational toys and report sales increases last year of 200 percent. And since the average family income is growing, sales of new Hyper-Go toys should also increase."
WORDS: 784          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2011/3/9 15:06:59
While this memorandum from the president of Hyper-Go Toy Company (HGTC) seems logical and persuasive, however, after scrutiny of it carefully, I find it not that reliable. The argument concludes that HGTC should discontinue their action toys and focus exclusively on a new line of educational toys since they experienced a sharp decline in their sales of Fierce Fighter toy which had ever been a top seller for three years. To support this conclusion, the author cites surveys from their customer showing that parents now are more worried about youthful violence and care about better education for their children. Moreover, the author also points out that other toy companies have already begun marketing educational toys and increased their sales. However, this argument suffers from several critical flaws, which renders it unconvincing as it stands.

In the first place, the surveys in this argument suffer from several problems, any of which render it unreliable. First, the author provides no information about the total number of respondents involved in these surveys. Common sense informs me that the smaller the sample is, the less reliable the survey demonstrates. Therefore, if there were few customers responded to the surveys, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion from them. Second, the author fails to offer evidence to indicate that if those respondents could be representative of the overall general population. It is entirely possible that only these respondents care about education a lot and are worried about youthful violence but the general trend concerns about these problems little. Without eliminating this possibility, the author cannot convince me that their action toys should be discontinued. Third, even assuming that the result of these surveys are reliable, the author fails to establish a cause and effect relationship between the considerations of parents and the claim that HGTC should discontinue their action toys and focus on a new line of educational toys. It is highly likely that these parents only might prevent their children from watching TV or firms related to violence and educate them through other ways such as additional schools, TV educational programs and so forth. The author provides no information as a indication that parents will stop buying their action toys and to buy educational toys. Therefore, the conclusion that HGTC should stop their action toys and open a new line of education toys is unwarranted.

In the second place, the author assumes that their decreased sales of Fierce Fighter toy are responsible for the recommendation. As is provided in the argument, it is told that Fierce Fighter toy airplane had been a top seller for three years. It is entirely possible that last year's decrease was only an exception at all. Moreover, the author provides no other information that if all of their sales of action toys were declined other than this one. In other word, the decreased sales of Fierce Fighter toy airplane might not be representative of the other sales conditions of action toys in HGTC. As a result, without ruling out these and other possible explanations, it is unconvincing that HGTC should stop selling action toys any more.

In the third place, even assuming that all their sales of action toys has experienced a decline, however, it is not necessary the case that it should provide educational toys and this method might not guarantee profits. To begin with, as is mentioned in the argument, other toy companies have already begun marketing educational toys and report sales increases last year. Then, it means that there have been many competitors in the market and it is possible more hard for HGTC to newly open a line of educational toys and appeal to consumers when compared with other educational toys. Moreover, the author overlooks that profit is function of both the cost and revenue. It is entirely possible that the costs to offer educational toys in HGTC might cost a lot and therefore influents their profits eventually. Furthermore, the author fails to provide information to indicate that there is a causal relationship between the increasing of the average family income and the claim that sales of HG toys should increase. No evidence can show that more families are willing to buy their toys even their incoming have increased.

In conclusion, this argument is well-presented but not well-reasoned. To strengthen the author's conclusion, he or she must provide the reliability of those surveys and establish a cause and effect relationship between the need of opening a new line of educational toys to the result. Moreover, the author needs to prove that opening a new line of educational toys will make profits for HGTC. Additionally, the author also need to indicated that we should not sale action toys any more.

huhulaee8UID: 2864855

TOPIC: ARGUMENT152 - The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.

"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will reduce the number of people using the beaches and will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserved and the area's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
WORDS: 689          TIME: 00:29:32          DATE: 2011/3/8 18:51:25

While this argument seems logical and persuasive at first glance, however, I find it not that reliable. The head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria (T) recommends that T should charge people for using the beaches and thereby they can not only protect their island but also preserve their tourist industry. To support this recommendation, the head points out that they will raise money for replenishing the sand by charging people though it may annoy a few tourists in the short term. Moreover, the head also cites a success example of island of Batia(B) who protect buildings along the shores by replenishing the sand. However, this argument suffers from several critical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

In the first place, the author fails to establish the cause and effect relationship between the erosion of beach in T and the charge of people to use the beaches. The head provide no reliable and clear evidence as a indication that it is the people who use the beaches that lead to erosion of beach sand along the shores of T. It is possible that the nearby factories or buildings pollute the sands and might be responsible for the erosion. Without ruling this and other possible explanations for this erosion of beach, the author cannot convince me that charging people for using the beaches will stop the erosion.

Moreover, the author simply assumes that the money which comes from the people who using the beaches will be enough for replenishing the sand. However, it might not be that case. Without detailed information of how much will they charge people and how many people will pay money to use this beach in the future, it is unwarranted that the money from people paying for the beaches will be adequate for replenishing the sand. Moreover, the author fails to prove that people will be willing to pay the money for using beaches in T anymore. It is highly likely that people will not desire to use these beaches in the future due to the charge. As a result, the beaches in T might not be attractive any more If so, the author concludes too hastily that they will raise money for replenishing the sand, let alone improve their benches.

In the third place, the author simple equals the success example of B to replenishing the sand. However, the author overlooks many other possible factors that help B to protect buildings along their shores and reduce these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. For example, it is entirely possible that B has put out some new policy to protect the buildings alone their shores. Without ruling out this and other possible alternatives, I cannot take into consideration seriously that it is the replenishing the sand that help to protect those buildings along the shores.

Moreover, even assuming that it is replenishing the sand that lead to helping protect those buildings, however, the head provides no evidence that T should also need to replenish the sand and if T and B is comparable. First, lacking of accurate evidence of the sand condition of both T and B, it is high likely that B calls for replenishing the sand urgently but T is no need for replenish at all since T has enough sands. Second, the author ignores many possible differences between T and B. For example, if T need to protect buildings from additional damage of severe storms. Moreover, their geographical conditions, weather conditions, and as well economic conditions might not the same at all. In short, without eliminating these and other possible differences, the claims that T should learn from B to replenish the sand and thereby protect the buildings along the shores is unjustified.

In conclusion, this argument is well-presented but not well-reasoned. To strengthen this recommendation of the head, he or she must provide evidence that the charge could raise money for replenishing the sand. Moreover, the author also should provide evidence that B and T are comparable. What's more, the author needs to prove that the tourist industry will improve over the long term.

huhulaee8UID: 2864855

题目：ARGUMENT187 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine.

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan-that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."
字数：780          用时：00:29:58          日期：2011/3/10 12:53:48

While this argument seems logical and persuasive at first glance, however, after scrutiny of it carefully, I find it not that reliable. The author recommends that all people in the United States should increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression. To support this recommendation, the author cites a result from two scientists that indicated that omega-3 fatty acids play a key role in mental health. Moreover, the author points out that our ancestors experienced less depression than people today due to the fact that they ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega-3 fatty acids. Furthermore, the author also points out that people in Japan and Taiwan who consume large quantities of fish but report depression rates lower. However, this argument suffers from several logical flaws and relies on many unsubstantiated assumptions.

In the first place, the mere result from two scientists might not be reliable and persuasive. Without telling in details how they conducted the experiments and if they are exactly specialists related to the certain field, it is unjustified to believe the result of these two scientists and draw any conclusions. Moreover, even assuming that the suggestion from these two scientists is credible, however, the author unfairly equates mental health to depression. The author seems to ignore many other types of mental health and depression might not be among the range of mental health. Additionally, the author fails to provide evidence that the actual effect of omega-3 fatty acids. It is entirely possible that omega-3 fatty acids in fact do harm to mental health at all. Therefore, without providing firm information about the suggestion, it is unwarranted to conclude that there is a relationship between omega-3 fatty acids and depression.

In the second place, the author fails to establish a cause and effect relationship between the fact that our ancestors ate food including omega-3 fatty acids and the fact that they were much less likely to suffer from depression. The author simply ignores many other possible factors and differences between ancestors and people today that act as the main cause of less possible to suffer from depression. As is known to all, modern people have working pressure, living pressure and other affairs that make them experience depression. However, ancestors did not have these problems. Thus, it is highly likely that these pressures of modern people are truly responsible for the high depression than people in the past. As the same token, the author also cannot provide a causal relationship between people in Japan and Taiwan who eat a lot of fish and the claim that they report depression rates lower than that in the United States. First, it is quite possible that there are other possible explanations for their lower depression rates such as their living conditions, working conditions as well as genetic. Second, it is also doubtful that if they who in Japan and Taiwan report the true level of their depression rates at all. Third, it is entirely possible that people in Japan and Taiwan and Americans have different understanding and standards of depression. Therefore, without ruling out these and other possible alternatives, the author cannot convince me that omega-3 fatty acids can help to solve depression problem.

In the third place, even assuming that omega-3 fatty acids in fact help to relieve depression, however, it is presumptuous to conclude that all people in the United States should increase their consumption of fish. First, without reliable and substantiated evidence to guarantee that omega-3 fatty acids would have the same effects on people in the United States, the author generalizes too hastily that Americans will also solve their depression problems through this way since there are many differences between Asians and Americans such as their living conditions and genetic. Second, it is not safely to suggest all people in the United States to eat more fish. The author provides no information to indicate whether omega-3 fatty acids have some negative effects on particular people. Therefore, it is unwarranted to suggest all people in the United States to eat more fish.

huhulaee8UID: 2864855

这三篇 大家看眼顺的帮忙砍砍字数吧。。表示感谢

huhulaee8UID: 2864855

第一篇TOPIC: ARGUMENT218  删掉模板字数是528/784
第二篇TOPIC: ARGUMENT152 删掉模板字数是478/689
第三篇自己已经删减过了上面的字数不是780是678

nynyaaaUID: 204913

试想阅卷的每天看这么多seems logical and persuasive, however,我不敢想象了。

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

完了完了，我argument第一句话要改了.....

huhulaee8UID: 2864855

8# lasselore 那开头段应该如何

huhulaee8UID: 2864855

题目：ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
字数：617          用时：00:28:49          日期：2011/3/13 11:00:00

The argument astonishingly deduces a conclusion that all patients who suffer from muscle strain should take antibiotics since the fact that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quckly after severe muscle strain. After all, the arguer established his demonstraion on the basis of a study of two groups of paitents and therefore conclude that they who took antibiotics got well quicker. However, this argument suffers from several critical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First, the author provides no evidence that every patients who experience muscle strain will suffer from secondary infections. It is entirely posssible that only the mentioned patients who are diagnosed with severe muscle strain will have secondary infections but patients with the slight muscle strain might not have the infections. Or perhaps people have muscle strain at different places on the body could lead to different results of secondary infections. It is possible that people who have muscle strain on fingers or hands might easily to face the secondary infections since they could hardly prevent their hands or fingers to touch something which could easily result in infections. Therefore, without eliminating these and other possible alternatives, the author cannot convince me that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

Second, the study the author cited as well suffer from several problems, any of which renders the result unreliable. First, the author offer no information about the specific conditions of these two groups of patients. It is highly likely that the first group of patients suffered from less severe muscle strain than the second group of patients or they were much younger than the second group of people. Lacking of these crucial information, it is unsubstantiated to draw any conclusions from this study. Second, the author ignores the influence of these two different doctors to the results of study. It is entirely possible that the docor in the first group, who specializes in sports medicine, might have much more experiences on healing people with muscle strain than a general physician. Third, the author fails to demonstrate the exact number of patients involving in this study and if they were representative of the overall conditions. As is known, the smaller the sample, the less reliable the result of the study. Therefore, without providing more detailed information about the study, it is unwarranted to conclude that patients who took antibiotics acclerated the speed of healing after muscle strain.

In the third place, even assuming that taking antibiotics truly have effects, the author as well generalizes too hastily that all patients can take antibiotics but ignores the negative effects. It is entirely possible that some people might have negative reflection after taking antibiotics and their lives could be threatened. Hence, it is unwarranted to recommend all to take antibiotics with valid evidence. In additon, the author overlooks other possible alternative ways to help reduce the time of healing the muscle strain. For example, having a good rest and move little could have some effects on helping cure muscle strain. As a result, without adequate information or satistical evidence, it is unjustified to conclude that all patients who have muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment.

In sum, this argument is well-presented but not well-reasoned. To stengthen the conclusion, the author should provide evidence that all paitent who have muscle strain will suffer from the secondary infections. Moreover, the author need to prove the reliability of the study he cited or offer another more cogent study. Furthermore, the author should as well provide information to indicate that taking antibiotics is suitable for anyone and if it may have some undesirable side effects.

再来一篇 这篇我换了个开头段 大家帮我看看吧