【GRE作文互助组】jelly的作业贴——Argument习作帖（8.9）

jelly0429UID: 2809344

99) The following is a recommendation from the business manager of Monarch Books.

Since its opening in Collegeville twenty years ago, Monarch Books has developed a large customer base due to its reader-friendly atmosphere and wide selection of books on all subjects. Last month, Book and Bean, a combination bookstore and coffee shop, announced its intention to open a Collegeville store. Monarch Books should open its own in-store café in the space currently devoted to children's books. Given recent national census data indicating a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten, sales of children's books are likely to decline. By replacing its children's books section with a café, Monarch Books can increase profits and ward off competition from Book and Bean.


Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument。


In this argument, the author considers that the only way to help Monarch Books is building a café, at the cost of the children's book section. However, the author's statement, with no precise evidence and data, is not warranted enough to persuade us that his recommendation is beneficial for Monarch Book.

Above all, the author should illustrate the concrete the competitiveness of Monarch Book to judge whether Monarch Book can ward off competition from Book and Bean or not. The reason why the author persists to add a café is that he thinks Monarch Book will be beat by Book and Bean, which possesses a café. But what if Monarch Book is powerful or even stronger than Book and Bean? In the argument, the author also refers to a powerful truth that Monarch Book is popular in Collegeville. It is very likely that even though Book and Bean has a wonderful café, customers in Collegeville prefer their old friend, Monarch Book, which is characterized by reader-friendly atmosphere and wide selection of books. Thus, without any fact that can predict or inflect the failure of Monarch Book, the author cannot arbitrarily conclude that Monarch Book will be beat.

Even if Monarch Book cannot compete with Book and Bean, we still need evidences to illuminate that building a café is the best and only way to save Monarch Book. There are many methods like optimizing the category, adding new and popular books, decreasing the price and so on. Various solutions are available for improving, not just a café. Some of them can even be better than this suggestion. With no consideration of them, this argument is unpersuasive. Besides, we have reason to believe that Monarch Book is not affordable for the café or people in Collegeville do not like the café at all. After all, the author does not prove that the cafe will be accessible here. If so, the recommendation would backfire.

The author also has to explain the situation of sales of children's books to attest that there must be fewer children consuming books in this section. In fact, the author deduces this assertion merely according to the plausible census data. However, it can be easily refuted from these many aspects. For example, firstly, a national census data is not equal to the local situation. So the population of children here may not diminish. Secondly, the decline in the percentage cannot reflect the decline in the quantity because it can be also caused by the increase of the total population, not just the decrease of children. Thirdly, since children under age ten are just parts of all children, the reduction of the former not necessarily means fewer children of all ages. Lastly, even though fewer children, there is no evidence of less consumption of children's books. Therefore, other special evidence is in need.

All in all, the feasibility of this recommendation remains to be further discussed. The author can compare the competitive and financial situation of two bookshops at first, and then complement evidence of the children's population and the necessity of building a cafe. Only by this can the author improve his statement.      

loveJenny0717UID: 3240059

jellyArgument习作帖（8.9）.doc (26.5 KB, 下载次数: 11)

2012-8-10 12:31:51 上传

下载次数: 11

jelly0429UID: 2809344

loveJenny0717 发表于 2012-8-10 12:32

今天赶了一天的火车，刚上来~~多谢了~你的我改完了，有点慢，白天给你传上来~~

呃，我觉得我还是有点没搞懂分组的规则~是说每天都要重新分组吗？只有第一天上传了作业的人第二天才能被分组？

loveJenny0717UID: 3240059

jelly0429 发表于 2012-8-11 02:05
今天赶了一天的火车，刚上来~~多谢了~你的我改完了，有点慢，白天给你传上来~~

呃，我觉得我还是有点没 ...

每天都重新分组，作业按照帖子中的要求写，当天晚上10点之前改完同组的，同组的也会改完你的，还不懂的话可以问楼主，帖子里有她的QQ~

jelly0429UID: 2809344

loveJenny0717 发表于 2012-8-11 12:38
每天都重新分组，作业按照帖子中的要求写，当天晚上10点之前改完同组的，同组的也会改完你的，还不懂的话 ...

哎~~我刚才貌似是弄清楚了~~晕！难怪我说9、10号的分组为啥就没我了~~~诶~~我给你发消息了~你看到了没？

loveJenny0717UID: 3240059

jelly0429 发表于 2012-8-11 12:45
哎~~我刚才貌似是弄清楚了~~晕！难怪我说9、10号的分组为啥就没我了~~~诶~~我给你发消息了~你看到了没？

恩恩，看到了~

jelly0429UID: 2809344

8.11习作~

31) The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper.

In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.



提纲：
1、        预算不代表真正能用于教育的钱数。预算和实际花的钱不一样；就算实际的钱多，不代表全部用于教育，可能建新楼去了；人们可以通过其他渠道找钱啊
2、        没有比较两地学校的一些具体情况，也不能判断这些钱是出于重视给的，还是出于必须。要是一方学校很多，本来就需要那么多钱，那就不好说了~
3、        单从预算、花费这一方面是不能推及人民的重视程度的。要考虑其他因素。


正文：

By comparing the budgetary priority of the education, the author concludes that Parson City residents pay more attention to a good education in public schools than Blue City residents. However, in the author’s reasoning, there still exist some holes and logical errors which can weaken the conclusion. Therefore, lacking in essential evidence, the author can hardly make his conclusion persuasive.

Above all, the author should illustrate that exactly how much money are gave in fact, because the budget cannot truly reflect the real amount of the money. We all know that the budget is just a plan or a prediction before implementing a policy. So the budget may not predict the real situation precisely. It is possible that in fact Blue City provides more money than Parson City regardless of the relatively lower budge. Even though the two cities provide money exactly depends on the budget, it does not mean that Blue City will not recruit money in other ways. The tax is a main method to collect money, while it is not the only way. Blue City can also gain financial support from same companies that can devote much more money to schools than the government. If so, the fact is totally contrary and the author’s conclusion will be reputed as well.

Secondly, even if the budget can present the real amount of this money, the comparation of the concrete situation of public schools in two cities is also necessary so that we can judge the reason why two cities will apply different amounts of money on the public schools. In the author’s opinion, Parson City spends more because of the higher attention to a good education. However, it is also quietly possible that since there are more students and public schools than Blue City, Parson City inevitably should provide more money. If so, the better financial support of Parson City has nothing with citizens’ attention to the education and the author’s conclusion falls into doubt again. Thus, the author has to compare the situation of schools in two cities to rule out the possibility above. Only by this can the author ensure that the spending is merely related to people’s attention.

Lastly, the author has to take other relative factors into consideration as well in that barely regarding the government budget is far from precise judging citizens’ attitudes to the education. On one hand, the government budget is made by a small part of people, not all citizens. Therefore, the virtually public opinion may be overshadowed by the government. On the other hand, paying higher attention to the education can be reflected in various ways, not just the financial strategy. Are people willing to devote themselves to improving the education? Have them once help public schools to recruit fund? Did they give useful advice to the education? Many questions like these need to be considered. Unless the author comprehensively analyzes these possibilities, he cannot make the conclusion convincingly.

All in all, the author’s conclusion remains to be further discussed. To stronger his conclusion, the author has to provide us with the concrete situation of different schools, analyze the actual amount of money of two cities, and at last contrast citizens’ attitude from different aspects.