[a习作temp] argument177 限时写的，有语法错误，欢迎拍砖 [复制链接]

Gardenia-2005
UID：2135942

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1607
注册时间: 2005-9-6
精华: 2
帖子: 9

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-9-10 12:02:27 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The author of this argument recommend restricting membership in Civil club of Oak city and make several conclusions to support his or her argument.However,there are several critical flaws in the author's logic.

Firstly ,the author state that people working in Oak City but who live elsewhere can truly understand the issues of the city.However,this statement is unwarranted.It is entirely possible that people who work in that city does not care about the business and politics of the city and thus have no knowledge about these issues.It is also possible that a large part of the working people in the city are those who have just stettled down in Oak.If so,these people cannot fully understand the city before being completely familiar with the culture of that city.On the other hand,it is not necessary that those who live elsewhere other than in Oak cannot understand the business in that city.Perhaps,those people have grown uo in that city and thus have a good knowledge of Oak's custome,people there and ideas of main stream there.Thus, without ruling out these possibilities,it is difficult for the author to support his or her argument merely based on these conclusions.

Simiarly,without sufficient evidence ,it is unfairly for the author to conclude that only peoply who pay city taxes know how the money could be best invested.The author overlooks other possibility.Those experts in economical field,though may not live in Oak and do not have to pay taxes there,also can provide pragmatic ideas on how funds should be used.Thus,the author's conclusion has not include all possibilities.

Finally,the author cites another example of Elm City ,stating that only 25 non-residents have joined in Civic club, and thus infer that it is unlikely to disappoint non-residents by restricting membership.However,it is highly likely that most of the non-residents in Elm are disatisfied with this action and as a result,only several of them are willing to join the club.Even if the author's conclusion can accurately reflect the situations in Elm, it is unwarranted to infer that it will also apply to Oak City.The differences between the two in population, location ,economic condition and management patterns prohibit such a sweeping generalization.

In sum,the author's assumptions are narrow at best and cannot explain anything.To strengthen the argument,he or she should provide sufficient and convincing evidence showing that only working people and residents in Oak City can actually understand the business and politics in the city.Lacking of such evidence,it is difficult for me to believe that the recommendation should be followed

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-9-10 at 18:03 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

Guerrero
UID：2123189

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 20
寄托币: 1026
注册时间: 2005-7-31
精华: 0
帖子: 35

沙发

发表于 2005-9-11 21:24:53 |只看该作者

首段好象应该更具体一些,把论据都摆上
注意一下正文三段的平衡

Firstly ,the author state that people working in Oak City but who live elsewhere can truly understand the issues (essential spirits) of the city.However,this statement is unwarranted. (这句话感觉有些空洞) It is entirely possible that people who work in that city does not care about the business and politics of the city and thus have no (few) knowledge about these issues.It is also possible that a large part of the working people in the city are those who have just stettled down in Oak.If so,these people cannot fully understand the city before being completely familiar with the culture of that city.On the other hand,it is not necessary that those who live elsewhere other than in Oak cannot understand the business in that city.Perhaps,those people have grown uo in that city and thus have a good knowledge of Oak's custome,people there and ideas of main stream there.Thus, without ruling out these possibilities,it is difficult for the author to support his or her argument merely based on these conclusions.

Simiarly,without sufficient evidence ,it is unfairly for the author to conclude that only peoply who pay city taxes know how the money could be best invested.The author overlooks other possibility.Those experts in economical field,though may not live in Oak and do not have to pay taxes there,also can provide pragmatic ideas on how funds should be used.Thus,the author's conclusion has not include all possibilities.

Finally,the author cites another example of Elm City ,stating that only 25 non-residents have joined in Civic club, and thus infer that it is unlikely to disappoint non-residents by restricting membership.However,it is highly likely that most of the non-residents in Elm are disatisfied with this action and as a result,only several of them are willing to join the club.Even if the author's conclusion can accurately reflect the situations in Elm, it is unwarranted to infer that it will also apply to Oak City.The differences between the two in population, location ,economic condition and management patterns prohibit such a sweeping generalization.

In sum,the author's assumptions are narrow at best and cannot explain anything.To strengthen the argument,he or she should provide sufficient and convincing evidence showing that only working people and residents in Oak City can actually understand the business and politics in the city.Lacking of such evidence,it is difficult for me to believe that the recommendation should be followed

使用道具举报