寄托天下
查看: 778|回复: 0
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[a习作temp] Argument177【0706G-MYTH-II小组】第9次作业 by pengyanj [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望
0
寄托币
309
注册时间
2005-12-21
精华
0
帖子
0
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2007-3-27 00:36:21 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览
In this argument, the author concludes that membership in Oak City's Civic Club(CC) should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City(OC). To justify his conclusion, the author reasons that people who work in OC but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. Additionally, the author assumes that such restriction is not likely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in OC by citing the neighboring Elm City’s (EC) CC .However; I found his analysis ungrounded in several aspects.

In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that only those who live in OC and pay city taxes can fully understand how the money could best be used.  However, there is no causal relationship between living location and understanding about conditions of the city. Those who live outside the city probably work for companies or government in OC. Thus, they might better understand the business and politics of this city. Moreover, considering that other cities might develop fast, the nonresidents’ experience is valuable for OC to borrow. They could bring along their own cities' experience, which is a paramount supplement and reference for recommendation of OC's development. Furthermore, if the residents living in the city have a inferior educational level, they are not likely to come up with judicious proposals. Hence, such restriction might turn out to be unreasonable and shortsighted.

In the second place, the author's assumption that such restriction will not disappoint many of the nonresidents is open to doubt, since the situation of neighboring city does not necessarily applicable to OC.  To begin with, the author provides no information about the population of nonresidents in two cities.  Probably EC is much smaller than OC, and the number of nonresidents is much smaller than OC. In that case, to ignore a considerable number of nonresidents would not be advisable. Moreover, it also might be the case that the nonresidents in EC less concerned about the EC's development, while the nonresidents in OC show more enthusiasm to get participated in public affairs. Still, it is also likely to be that the CC in EC does not weigh much in public. And government seldom adapts their proposals or recommendations. So the nonresidents lose interest to get into it. Thus, the conditions of two cities might differ greatly, the OC cannot safely borrow the experience of EC.

To sum up, this argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Further investigation and meticulous consideration should be taken before hastily restricting membership of nonresidents.
回应
0

使用道具 举报

RE: Argument177【0706G-MYTH-II小组】第9次作业 by pengyanj [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
Argument177【0706G-MYTH-II小组】第9次作业 by pengyanj
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-635913-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部