第一次ScoreItNow同主题

itsuperUID：2603075

字数371      时间 1小时
In this letter, the arguer puts forward a idea that their town purchases the land known as Scott Woods in Morganton and build a school there. In order to make this method more acceptable , the author points out that rest of the land would probably be devoted to a athletic fields and a large majority of our children participate in sports and thus Scott Woods would continue to benefit their community as natural parkland.However, the argument suffers several flaws ,which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to provide clear evidence that there is a big chance that the rest of land will be devoted to athletic fields. Lacking such evidences. it is likely that the land will be used in other purpose. Perhaps, the land will be devoted to build a swimming pool. Or perhaps this land will be used as a library. Furthermore, the arguer also fails to rule out the possibilities that the rest of the land would be builded as shopping centers or houses. Therefore, the assumption that substantial acreage would probably be used as athletic fields remains unconvincing.

Secondly, without clearly definition of natural parkland, it is impossible to claim that athletic fields are natural parkland. If we define natural parkland as the land that was in a natural ,undeveloped state, then the land developed could not be called as natural parkland and athletic fields could not be regarded as nature parkland.

Finally, supposing athletic fields  is still natural parkland, it is too hastily to assume that building school is the best use of the land. The arguer do not show any other  possible use of the land. Without comparison with other methods, the conclusion of the best cannot be drawed.  Also ,the author fails to indicate a majority of their children participate in sports.

In sum, the letter is not so convincing as it stands. To bolster it , the author must show there is a big change that the rest of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The arguer should also give clearly definition of natural parkland and point out how beneficial the athletic fields would be to the residents. To better access the letter, I should also know the reaction of residents in Morganton about this suggestion.



可能作为运动场地,也可能不,作者没有说出这种可能性的大小,且也没排除空地作购物中心的可能.
没有准确的关于自然园地的定义,运动场是否为自然园地仍能确定.
没有与其它方法比较,很难得出这是最好的使用方法

欲解决的问题:
开头的陈述作者思路是否太长,而不必要.
字数会成为机器评分的一个参考吗?
其实对有些题目/没弄太清楚哪些是作者的陈述哪里是假设,如这里说大部分的小孩会参加运动是事实还是假设的呢?对于事实假设应该怎样判断?

itsuperUID：2603075

感谢楼主的指正,已参照楼主意见进行了修改.  蓝色部分为修改部分

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this letter, the arguer puts forward a idea that their town purchases the land known as Scott Woods in Morganton and build a school there. In order to make this method more acceptable , the author points out that rest of the land would probably be devoted to a athletic fields and a large majority of our children participate in sports and thus Scott Woods would continue to benefit their community as natural parkland. However, the argument suffers several flaws ,which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to provide clear evidence that there is a big chance that the rest of land will be devoted to athletic fields. Lacking such evidences. it is likely that the land will be used in other purpose. Perhaps, the land will be devoted to build a swimming pool. Or perhaps this land will be used as a library. Furthermore, the arguer also fails to rule out the possibilities that the rest of the land would be built as shopping centers or houses. It is likely the rest of the land is abundant for those buildings. If the rest of land is devoted to shopping centers or houses, it go against the previous thinking of residents in Morganton. Therefore, the assumption that substantial acreage would probably be used as athletic fields remains unconvincing.

Secondly, athletic fields could not be regarded as nature parkland so hastily. Without clearly definition of natural parkland, it is impossible to claim that athletic fields are natural parkland. If we define natural parkland as the land that was in a natural ,undeveloped state, then the land developed could not be called as natural parkland .

Finally, supposing athletic fields is still natural parkland, it is too hastily to assume that building school is the best use of the land. The arguer do not show any other possible use of the land. Without comparison with other methods, the conclusion of the best cannot be drawed.  

In sum, the letter is not so convincing as it stands. To bolster it , the author must show there is a big change that the rest of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The arguer should also give clearly definition of natural parkland and point out how beneficial the athletic fields would be to the residents. To better access the letter, I should also know the reaction of residents in Morganton about this suggestion.