In this argument, the author attempts to convince us that decrease the international news can help save money. To justify this claim, the author point out that international news on magazine's front covers affected the selling of the magazine, other news-magazines have decreased the number of cover stories, and reporting international news will increase the cost of maintaining the foreign bureaus. But, the evidence pretend throughout the argument, however, is insufficient and hence does not offer strong support to what the author claims.
In the first place, the arguer makes an entirely assumption without providing any evidence to back up that assumption. He or she assumes that the poorest selling of our magazine issues result from international news stories on their front pages but gives no reasons for such an assumption. There may be countless other factors that could cause few people buy our magazine, such as the price is too high or the local people dislike reading magazine, for example. Furthermore, it is likelihood that the selling may be even less without the front international stories covers. Without providing any proof that our poorest-selling magazine was actually caused by the featured international stories on front covers, there is no support for the arguer to draw a conclusion that less international stories mean more selling.
Secondly, the arguer assumes that our competing news-magazines have cut off the number of international cover stories, so we ought to do the same thing. However, he or she fails to offer us the evidence that the profit of other magazines is increasing. Maybe they sell less magazines than us. Or they add some mystify stories when decreasing international stories, which is catering to most people’s need. There may be another reason for that is other companies low the price of their magazines. So, in order to increase the selling, we may add the number of mystify or low the price, but not decreasing the international cover stories.
Thirdly, the arguer said that reporting international news will increase the cost of maintaining the foreign bureaus, apparently based solely on the fact that international news has nothing to do with the selling. But, there is no proof offered to suggest the argument. There may have other possible alternatives. First, with the advert of economical crisis, people are not reluctant to spend much money on buying magazines again. Moreover, perhaps the number of employers in the foreign bureaus is too large, we need to dismiss some people in order to control the cost.
In summary, the arguer fails to establish a casual relationship between decreasing the number of international news and the selling or cost of the magazines. Additionally, convincing evidence is offered that we should refrain from displaying international stories on our magazine covers. This argument should be rejected due to the lack of any supporting evidence that withdrawing the proposed strategy will exert a positive on our magazine's prosperity. 作者: songluleicsu 时间: 2009-6-10 16:25:45
本帖最后由 songluleicsu 于 2009-6-10 16:28 编辑
In this argument, the author attempts to convince us that decrease(decreasing) the international news can help save money（我觉得作者的观点主要是减少国际新闻的数量，至于“减少费用”只是他用于支持这个论点的一个论据，不应该列在这里）。 To(In order to) justify this claim, the author points out that international news on magazine's front covers affected the selling of the magazine, other news-magazines have decreased the number of cover stories, and reporting international news will increase the cost of maintaining the foreign bureaus. But, the evidence pretend(?? "presented") throughout the argument, however(这里好像应该去掉，前面已经有"but"了), is insufficient and hence does not offer strong support to what the author claims.
In the first place, the arguer makes an entirely assumption without providing any evidence to back up that assumption. He or she assumes that the poorest selling of our magazine issues results from international news stories on their front pages but gives no reasons for such an assumption. There may be countless other factors that could cause few people buy our magazine, such as the price is too high or the local people dislike reading magazine, for example（这个for example可以去掉吧）. Furthermore, it is likelihood that the selling may be even less without the front international stories covers. Without providing any proof that our poorest-selling magazine was actually caused by the featured international stories on front covers, there is no support for the arguer to draw a conclusion that less international stories mean more selling.
Secondly, the arguer assumes that our competing news-magazines have cut off the number of international cover stories, so we ought to do the same thing. However, he or she fails to offer us the evidence that the profit of other magazines is increasing. Maybe they sell less magazines than us. Or they add some mystify stories when decreasing international stories, which is catering to most people’s need. There may be another reason for that （加上which） is other companies low the price of their magazines. So, in order to increase the selling, we may add the number of mystify or low the price, but not decreasing the international cover stories.（这一段我觉得你写得不太明白，对到底为什么不应该减少国际新闻数量 论证不是很有力。 应该可以从这方面考虑，比如，虽说竞争对手减少了他们杂志上的国际新闻数量，但他们的国际新闻数量还是比我们杂志的多。。。）
Thirdly, the arguer said(says) that reporting international news will increase the cost of maintaining the foreign bureaus, apparently based solely on the fact that international news has nothing to do with the selling.（这句话是想说什么） But, there is no proof offered to suggest the argument. There may have other possible alternatives. First, with the advert of economical crisis, people are not reluctant to spend much money on buying magazines again. Moreover, perhaps the number of employers in the foreign bureaus is too large, we need to dismiss some people in order to control the cost(加上rather than reduce the number of international news 好像更好些).
In summary, the arguer fails to establish a casual relationship between decreasing the number of international news and the selling（这里应该说成销量增加） or cost of the magazines. Additionally, convincing evidence is not offered that we should refrain from displaying international stories on our magazine covers. This argument should be rejected due to the lack of any supporting evidence that withdrawing the proposed strategy will exert a positive on our magazine's prosperity.作者: snail8843 时间: 2009-6-10 16:26:55
1#xiang427
In this argument, the author attempts to convince us that decrease the international news can help save money. To justify this claim, the author point out that international news on magazine's front covers affected the selling of the magazine, other news-magazines have decreased the number of cover stories, and reporting international news will increase the cost of maintaining the foreign bureaus. But, the evidence pretend（presented） throughout the argument, however（和前一个but重了）, is insufficient and hence does not offer （lend）strong support to what the author claims.
In the first place, the arguer makes an entirely assumption without providing any evidence to back up that assumption（这句子…是什么assumption啊？似乎不是个assumption，避免这个词的滥用）. He or she assumes that the poorest selling of our magazine issues result from international news stories on their front pages but gives no reasons for such an assumption（这似乎不是个假设，而是个现象）. There may be countless（怎么会是无数的？） other factors that could cause few people buy our magazine, such as the price is too high or the local people dislike reading magazine, for example. Furthermore, it is likelihood that the selling may be even less without the front international stories covers.（这句话是要说销量下降与封面国际新闻无关么？感觉写的不地道，如果是这样的话就不是furthermore吧，因为这句话就是这段的TS,为什么在这里又出现了一遍） Without providing any proof that our poorest-selling magazine was actually caused by the featured international stories on front covers, there is no support for the arguer to draw a conclusion that less international stories mean more selling.
Secondly, the arguer assumes that our competing news-magazines have cut off the number of international cover stories, so we ought to do the same thing. However, he or she fails to offer us the evidence that the profit of other magazines is increasing.（这话和段首句不构成however关系啊，你的假设是对手是否减少了国际新闻的报道，而到后边又说他们是不是利润增加了，感觉逻辑有些乱奥） Maybe they sell less magazines than us. Or they add some mystify stories when decreasing international stories, which is catering to most people’s need. There may be another reason for that（一个perhaps就可以了，简练些） is other companies low the price of their magazines. So, in order to increase the selling, we may add the number of mystify or low the price, but not decreasing the international cover stories.（否定降低国际新闻的报道就可以了，感觉没必要提出我们应该如何做，因为你这些也都是些建设，所以这样的建议不要提）
Thirdly, the arguer said（said不大好，换个indicated吧） that reporting international news will increase the cost of maintaining the foreign bureaus, apparently based solely on the fact that international news has nothing to do with the selling（这句话没看懂，”基于国际性新闻和销量的无关，作者说报道国际性新闻会增加成本”这是什么意思呢…）. But, there is no proof offered to suggest the argument. There may have other possible alternatives. First, with the advert of economical crisis, people are not reluctant to spend much money on buying magazines again. Moreover, perhaps the number of employers in the foreign bureaus is too large, we need to dismiss some people in order to control the cost.（没有看出你的TS，而且这个论据感觉和第一个有些重复）
In summary, the arguer fails to establish a casual relationship between decreasing the number of international news and the selling or cost of the magazines. Additionally, convincing（unconvincing） evidence is offered that we should refrain from displaying international stories on our magazine covers. This argument should be rejected due to the lack of any supporting evidence that withdrawing the proposed strategy will exert a positive on our magazine's prosperity.