[未归类] argument ~,帮忙看看，万谢~！！！ddd新手，请指教 [复制链接]

hmwstanley
UID：2617486

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 3
寄托币: 68
注册时间: 2009-3-17
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-3-20 14:53:10 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

"Two years ago, the town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in Ocean View has increased, new businesses have opened there, and Ocean View's tax revenues have risen by 30 percent. The best way to improve Hopewell's economy, and generate additional tax revenues, is to build a golf course and resort hotel similar to those in Ocean View."

以下是我写的（新手）：
In this argument, the author concludes that building a golf course and resort hotel similar to those in Ocean View will automatically render a significant development on economy in Hopewell. To substantiate the conclusion, the author cites a prosper trends after a golf course and resort hotel construction: (1)more tourism;(2) more companies opened ;(3) increased 30% tax revenue. The argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted in several respects.

The first fallacy is the author regards the more tourism, add companies and 30% increased tax
amount to the trends in improved
economy. More tourism may enhance the pressure on product ability that the city cannot afford; added companies is probably not under local control may harm the environment that demand more funds to protect our environment; it is entirely possible the local tax policy is changed and enhance the tax proportion which indicates nothing persuasive massage on increased tax revenue. In addition, 30%, seems illustrious, but only ratio offered, the unknown actual level of tax maybe very law. Thus, without ruling out more significant evidence on economic prosperity, the
argument's conclusion is considerably valid and benumbed.

Even assuming the improve economy in Ocean View, the author tolerably irrational to exclusively the prosperity trends in Ocean View solely to the golf course and resort hotel settled and fails to consider several relevant factors. One possibility the author overlooks is that may the policies on travel and businesses are reverse to a better aspect for the local economy. Since the other possible relevant particular analysis have not been scrutinized and eliminated by the author, the arbitrary decision on this viewpoint can not be convinced.

Furthermore, maybe Ocean View has a secession of underlying fundamental imputation discrepancy from Hopewell, which the author neglecting, it is highly unfeasible to assume the strategy deduce to the two city . Perhaps the former one is a nice environment city which near the sea and have wonderful beach; the latter is a industry city that is not available for golf. It is evidence that
there is no similarities between these two cites offered, this would lend less considerable support to oppugn the author's conclusion.

In summary, the argument is lack of cogent logical and unsubstantiated as it stands. To buttress the conclusion, the author would have to rule out more evidence concerning.

（我是掐时间写的，谢谢各位大侠了~）

Argument, ddd, 万谢, 新手, 指教

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.07.01

回应
0

使用道具举报

番茄斗斗
UID：2720914

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 35
寄托币: 950
注册时间: 2009-11-3
精华: 0
帖子: 3

沙发

发表于 2010-3-22 19:56:22 |只看该作者

"Two years ago, the town of Ocean View built a new municipal golfcourse and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in OceanView has increased, new businesses have opened there, and Ocean View'stax revenues have risen by 30 percent. The best way to improveHopewell's economy, and generate additional tax revenues, is to build agolf course and resort hotel similar to those in Ocean View."

以下是我写的（新手）：
In this argument,the author concludes that building a golf course and resort hotelsimilar to those in Ocean View will automatically render a significantdevelopment on economy in Hopewell. To substantiate the conclusion, theauthor cites a prosper trends after a golf course and resort hotelconstruction: (1)more tourism;(2) more companies opened ;(3) increased30% tax revenue. The argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified andunwarranted in several respects.

The first fallacy is the author regards the more tourism, add companies（add company？这样的表述很奇怪） and 30% increased tax
amount to the trends in improved
economy（这句的语法有点问题）. More tourism（more tourism?难道tourism还有很多个？？） may enhance the pressure on product ability thatthe city cannot afford（这句的表述也有问题。。）; added companies is probably not under localcontrol may harm the environment that demand more funds to protect ourenvironment; it is entirely possible the local tax policy is changedand enhance the tax proportion which indicates nothing persuasivemassage on increased tax revenue. In addition, 30%, seems illustrious,but only ratio offered, the unknown actual level of tax maybe very law.Thus, without ruling out more significant evidence on economicprosperity, the
argument's conclusion is considerably valid and benumbed.（不建议攻击tax revenues，即便从数字找茬，也很难给出合理的解释；）

Even assuming theimprove economy in Ocean View, the author tolerably irrational toexclusively the prosperity trends in Ocean View solely to the golfcourse and resort hotel settled and fails to consider several relevantfactors. One possibility the author overlooks is that may the policieson travel and businesses are reverse to a better aspect for the localeconomy.（这里的论述不够完整，仅仅举出一个alternative explanation对于argument来说是不够的） Since the other possible relevant particular analysis have notbeen scrutinized and eliminated by the author, the arbitrary decisionon this viewpoint can not be convinced.

Furthermore, maybeOcean View has a secession of underlying fundamental imputationdiscrepancy from Hopewell, which the author neglecting, it is highlyunfeasible to assume the strategy deduce to the two city（？？） . Perhaps theformer one is a nice environment city（？？） which near the sea and havewonderful beach; the latter is a industry city that is not availablefor golf. It is evidence that
there is no similarities between these two cites offered, this wouldlend less considerable support to oppugn the author's conclusion.

In summary, theargument is lack of cogent logical and unsubstantiated as it stands. Tobuttress the conclusion, the author would have to rule out moreevidence concerning.

总的来说，这篇argu的问题还是挺多的，语法的问题很严重，用词上也偏chinglish，论证不够透彻，属于找到攻击点就一笔带过的那种；
不知道lz什么时候要考，有时间的话还是多翻翻语法和awintro，加油！～

可以很早很早起～

使用道具举报