- 最后登录
- 2009-9-27
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 1239
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2007-3-10
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 11
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 1032
- UID
- 2311527
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 1239
- 注册时间
- 2007-3-10
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 11
|
TOPIC: ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
WORDS: 436 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-8-10
In this argument, the arguer recommended that the Oak City's Club should continue to be restricted to the citizens of Oak City, but he failed to show the reason why the nonresidents who worked in Oak City cannot truly understood the business and politics of the city. Besides, s/he cited the example of Elm City where the condition may be quite different from the Oak City.
The arguer unfairly assumed that people who worked in the Oak City but lived elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. Firstly, there is no information showing that the nonresidents do not understand the business and politics of the city. The nonresidents who work in the Oak City may also concern the business and political events here, since those events may actually influence their jobs and their salaries. More over, just because they live elsewhere, they may be more likely to find the problems existed in the Oak City. The nonresidents, who live else where, may understand both the Oak City and their own city very well. Thus, compared to their own cities, it may be easier for them to find the problems in the Oak City, and provide some good advice to the club.
In addition, the arguer still unfairly assumed that the nonresidents may not be disappointed by citing the example of the Elm City. However, the conditions of Elm City may not be as convincing as it seems. Firstly, the arguer failed to show the number of members in the Elm City's Club. Given that there are less than 50 members in the club, nonresidents actually take up half of the membership, so that the club is much appeal to the nonresidents of Elm City. Secondly, if there are only 25 nonresidents in the Elm City, then all of them take part in the city club. Therefore, it means that the nonresidents in the Elm City are willing to join the city club.
More over, the condition of Elm City might be quite different from the Oak City, so that the arguer should not simply compare the club of the two cities without more information. It is possible that there are many nonresidents working in the Oak City for it is a prosperous city, while the Elm City is relatively not as prosperous as the Oak City. In that case, if the city club can be open to the nonresidents, they may be working here more happily and also offer some valuable suggestions.
To sum up, without enough information of whether the nonresidents will understand the Oak City and whether the condition of the Elm City can be compared to the Oak City, the recommendation is not accepted. |
|