[i习作temp] 421小妹第一篇argument求指导（包含原版和修改版） [复制链接]

rainystarwow
UID：3157773

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 10
寄托币: 492
注册时间: 2011-8-23
精华: 0
帖子: 38

沙发

发表于 2012-4-13 21:57:01 |只看该作者

貌似版主不喜欢自称小妹，小弟的！

千江有水千江月，万里无云万里天

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 132
注册时间: 2011-9-1
精华: 0
帖子: 17

板凳

发表于 2012-4-14 14:03:16 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 flwmh 于 2012-4-15 15:16 编辑

On the first look, the argument is plausible. The author draws conclusion that a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood will be popular and profitable. To support (避免与后文重复bolster) the conclusion, the author points out that the consumption of seafood dishes has increased while there are no restaurants that specialize in seafood currently. Then the writer cites that seafood will be popular by concerning the fact that families express more concern about eating healthily.（这一句跟原文的意思有些偏颇，或者你表述的有些不明确。将popular跟eating healthily的关系有点因果的味道。或者我水平有限请指教） However, upon closer examination, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated evidence, which renders it unwarranted as it stands.
First, the fact that consumption of seafood dishes has increased by 30 percent over the past 5 years may not indicate that the seafood dishes will be popular among the customer. As we known, the taste of the public is changeable. The past current can’t guarantee that the consumption will increase in the future. The argument should give more detailed evidences to show the seafood consumption will increase in the future. Absent such evidences, it is just likely that the population of seafood（删去，人不能成为时尚啊，主语有些问题，改为“eating seafood”） is just（重复，可去） a fad which won’t last for a long time. If this is the case, the author’s conclusion would be unjustified.

To add, the nationwide study may not apply to this specific area. It is quite possible that the two-income families in the Bay City do not follow this general trend. For this matter, the trend in the Bay City would be just the opposite. And the fact that people pay more attention to healthy food doesn't exactly refer to the seafood. Actually, many people may （be） unfit with seafood and it is possible to cause healthy problem when those people take seafood（it 代替怎么样）. What's more, the income situation of the people has nothing to do with the topic. It is entirely possible that the customer who has high salary may dislike seafood. (这两句我感觉逻辑上有些小问题，你一开始说没关系，但是你后面虽说从反面说的，但是还是有关系的。你可以说文章中缺少人们的收入是否能承担得起seafood的费用。)If so, the author’s assumption is unwarranted.

Finally, assuming that all the above assumption is reliable, it is presumptuous to conclude that a restaurant specializing in seafood will be profitable.（这一句的前半句，个人感觉有些不太恰当。你想说的意思是说上面所有的表述都是能够说明seafood will be popular,你说的“above assumption”有一些你认为是跟这个topic无关的，这样的话感觉连贯性不好。“assuming that the seafood is popular here based on above evidences”怎么样？如果可以，那么，下一个标红的句子就要删去了） Common sense tells us that interest is consisted with income and cost. Assuming the seafood is popular among the customers, the cost of making seafood dishes may be too high to afford when (it) comes to a (an) inland place where seafood is scant.（这一句你说的是inland place，最好能够跟Bay City联系起来,假设一下也行。） In this situation, though seafood may be popular, it won't be profitable. Without weighing income and cost the author’s conclusion is premature at best.

In sum, the argument is based on a series of evidence (evidences) uncorrelated (这一个词改成“insufficient”是不是更为贴切你的意思) with the final conclusion. To bolster the conclusion, the author should offer dates (没太明白你的意思) of the exact number people who prefer seafood which is sufficient to run a seafood restaurant. It is also necessary to provide the needed information about the cost and income to determine the likelihood that a popular restaurant would turn (make) a profit. （个人感觉最后两句表述有点不恰当，run a seafood restaurant 和 make a profit 经过你的文章论述，在可行性方面，需要的条件是一样的。你这样分开写有点赘述或者说啰嗦）。
你的文章思路很好啊，语言也不错，挺丰富的，比我的好多了，稍微有点瑕疵。
以上仅我个人意见及建议，若是恰当，个人非常高兴；若有不当之处请回馈给我哦，我渴望得到你的指点 ~-~

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 132
注册时间: 2011-9-1
精华: 0
帖子: 17

地板

发表于 2012-4-14 14:04:16 |只看该作者

用了俩点看你的文章，希望对你有帮助啊。

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 132
注册时间: 2011-9-1
精华: 0
帖子: 17

5楼

发表于 2012-4-14 14:04:41 |只看该作者

用了俩点看你的文章，希望对你有帮助啊。

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 132
注册时间: 2011-9-1
精华: 0
帖子: 17

6楼

发表于 2012-4-14 14:05:24 |只看该作者

不好意思，我这回复完，他不能跳转，无意中多发了一贴。呵呵呵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 132
注册时间: 2011-9-1
精华: 0
帖子: 17

7楼

发表于 2012-4-14 14:06:36 |只看该作者

忘记说了，括号里面是我的观点。标红地方为个人感觉不太合适的地方。

木槿不说话
UID：2898647

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 27
寄托币: 569
注册时间: 2010-9-6
精华: 0
帖子: 91

8楼

发表于 2012-4-15 22:22:22 |只看该作者

这是我修改过的啊…你看我之前定时写的就很烂了…别被假象迷惑了~
1.我觉得文章意思就是觉得eating healthy和popular之间有因果关系然后我才攻击的…我就是觉得它俩没什么必然联系。
2.我说的那个have nothing to do with原本要表达的意思是，不能由income situation推出结论，它俩没什么关系。即使有关系，也有可能是后面的那种反的关系…这中间是不是得加上点什么过渡的？
其他的修改我都觉得很好呢…果然这文章还是得别人改改的…我自己看就看不出这些小逻辑错误的。
谢谢你。