[a习作temp] =七月流火=小组第1次小组作业 argu112 by knx1029 [复制链接]

knx1029
UID: 2609556

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 103
注册时间: 2009-3-2
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-19 14:50:26 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT112 - The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.
"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."
WORDS: 469       TIME: 00:30:00       DATE: 2009/8/19 9:09:50

   In this argument, the author advocates the plan about filling in 900 acres of the bay to alleviate the pressure on the flight delays. To back up this recommendation, the author claims that this is the only solution and the airport has already promised to fund the restoration of wetlands in areas of the bay. Careful examination of this reasoning, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's viewpoint. The reasons are stated as follows.
   In the first place, by suggesting the urgent need to build new runways to draw his conclusion, the author's recommendation rests on the assumption that lacking enough runways is responsible for the flight delays. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to doubt that this might not necessarily be the case. To be specific, perhaps the flights time are not well-arranged and the interval between departure times of flights are not balanced. Thus, there is time when the runways are fully occupied as well as they are totally empty. In this case, the flight time is to be blame rather than the insufficient number of runways. To reach the cited conclusion, the author should supply more detailed information to convince me that this scenario is unlikely.
   In the second place, even though the flight delay is a result of the airport being short of runways, the author's viewpoint that it is reasonable to damage the environment if it will be restored in the future is open to doubt.  The example provided in the argument about the previous damaged bay by industrialization just serves to undermine the author's opinion. As we all know, it takes millions of years for the environment to recycle and recover from the pollution. Considering this fact, to destroy and to restore it later is unwise, since we human can do little help for the recovery of the biosphere.
   In the third place, the credibility of the author's claim that the airport will fund the restoration once it is permitted to build its new runways is questionable.  Building a new runway is undoubtedly costly as common sense informs me. Thus, how much the airport could fund the restoration cannot be assured. That is to say, we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the funding from the airport, which is the crucial factor when considering whether to allow it filling the bay. Unless the author can cite more concrete information about the airport's promise, I will remain doubtful about the amount of benefits the restoration of the bay could actually acquired from the airport.
   To sum up, the argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite more persuasive evidence, and take every consideration into account.

回应
0

使用道具举报

huaishi100
UID: 2621245

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 157
注册时间: 2009-3-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2009-8-20 10:08:48 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 huaishi100 于 2009-8-20 10:13 编辑

虽然也是用模板但是你写比我写的好多了呃  我就提出一点我自己的看法不知道对不对只供借鉴
In this argument, the author advocates the plan about filling in 900 acres of the bay to alleviate the pressure on the flight delays. To back up this recommendation, the author claims that this is the only solution and the airport has already promised to fund the restoration of wetlands in areas of the bay. Careful examination of this reasoning, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's viewpoint. The reasons are stated as follows.
   In the first place, by suggesting the urgent need to build new runways to draw his conclusion, the author's recommendation rests on the assumption that lacking enough runways is responsible for the flight delays. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to doubt that this might not necessarily be the case. To be specific, perhaps the flights （应该不用加s 吧）time are not well-arranged and the （时间间隔用time interval ）interval between departure times（这里应该也不用加s吧）of flights are not balanced. Thus, there is time when the runways are fully occupied as well as they are totally empty. In this case, the flight time is to be blame（be to blame是受责的意思所以应该用 should be to blame 这样更好一点吧） rather than the insufficient number of runways. To reach the cited conclusion, the author should supply more detailed information to convince me that this scenario is unlikely.
   In the second place, even though the flight delay is a result of the airport being short of runways, the author's viewpoint that it is reasonable to damage the environment if it will be restored in the future is open to doubt.  The example provided in the argument about the previous damaged bay by industrialization just serves to undermine the author's opinion. As we all know, it takes millions of years for the environment to recycle and recover from the pollution. Considering this fact, to destroy and to （这个to要取消吧）restore it later is unwise, （这句话用it is unwise to restore it after.....这样的句式我觉得更好）since we human can do little help for the recovery of the biosphere.
   In the third place, the credibility of the author's claim that the airport will fund the restoration once it is permitted to build its new runways is questionable.  Building a new runway is undoubtedly costly as common sense informs me. Thus, how much the airport could fund the restoration cannot be assured（assured是自信的意思我觉得这里应该用ensured）. That is to say, we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the funding from the airport, which is the crucial factor when considering whether to allow it filling the bay. Unless the author can cite more concrete information about the airport's promise, I will remain doubtful about the amount of benefits the restoration of the bay could actually acquired from the airport.
   To sum up, the argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite more persuasive evidence, and take every consideration into account.
通过这个文章看得出你英语比我好所以我提的建议不知道对不对希望下次帮你批改的同学也看一下我指出的问题对不对  加油哦~:loveliness:
语言：我觉得还不错有一些我也不太能确定但是已经很努力地变换形式了
逻辑：第一个逻辑漏洞我跟你想的一样第二三个我持保留意见
结构：没什么问题  我热爱模板……

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

knx1029
UID: 2609556

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 103
注册时间: 2009-3-2
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2009-8-20 15:33:09 |只看该作者

In this argument, the author advocates the plan about filling in 900 acres of the bay to alleviate the pressure on the flight delays. To back up this recommendation, the author claims that this is the only solution and the airport has already promised to fund the restoration of wetlands in areas of the bay. Careful examination of this reasoning, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's viewpoint. The reasons are stated as follows.
   In the first place, by suggesting the urgent need to build new runways to draw his conclusion, the author's recommendation rests on the assumption that lacking enough runways is responsible for the flight delays. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to doubt that this might not necessarily be the case. To be specific, perhaps the flighttime is not well-arranged and the interval between departure time of flights are not balanced. Thus, there is time when the runways are fully occupied as well as they are totally empty. In this case, the flight time should be to blame rather than the insufficient number of runways. To reach the cited conclusion, the author should supply more detailed information to convince me of the causal relationship between the shortage of runways and flight delays.
   In the second place, even though the flight delay is a result of the airport being short of runways, the author's viewpoint that it is reasonable to damage the environment if it will be restored in the future is open to doubt.  The example provided in the argument about the previous damaged bay by industrialization just serves to undermine the author's opinion. As we all know, it takes millions of years for the environment to recycle and recover from the pollution. Considering this fact, it is unwise to restore after destroying it, since we human can do little help for the recovery of the biosphere. Without better evidence to confirm that the newly built runways would not bring destructive effect to the environment and widelives, the author cannot confidently suggests the airport to carry out this plan.
   In the third place, the credibility of the author's claim that the airport will fund the restoration once it is permitted to build its new runways is questionable. Building a new runway is undoubtedly costly as common sense informs me. Thus, how much the airport could fund the restoration cannot be ensured. That is to say, we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the funding from the airport, which is the crucial factor when considering whether to allow it filling the bay. Unless the author can cite more concrete information about the airport's promise, I will remain doubtful about the amount of benefits the restoration of the bay could actually acquired from the airport.
   To sum up, the argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite more persuasive evidence, and take every consideration into account.

   把前面那个同学说的地方改了一下。。第二个攻击点，我也不知道确切怎么说，是想说如果会带来毁灭性和不可修复的破坏，那么就不应该进行破坏....

使用道具举报