[a习作temp] Argument216 we gters want to retire,,,,,,, [复制链接]

dxh1201982
UID：2254956

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 708
注册时间: 2006-9-22
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-2 15:02:05 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT216 - The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.

"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
WORDS: 401 TIME: 上午 12:24:07 DATE: 2007-3-31

The author introduces that Clearview(C) has alluring natural and consistent climate. However, after close scrutiny, I find that the allegation that C should be a suitable choice to those who seek a place to retire is open to doubt.

First and foremost, the arguer provide a seemingly profitable policy adopted by C, which is not necessary the case. First, the one-year fallen housing costs would have other alternative explanation to explain. It is of great possibility that C has suffered economic recession the last year, and once has recovered, the present housing costs would be bound to rise. Otherwise, there lies doubt that whether the current housing costs existing in C is lower than other cities? Maybe not. Second, when it comes to the long-remained low real estate taxes, there would arise certain suspicions that it would be a shrewd policy adopted by the government. For C has long been beset by the negative effect after the recession, they reduced their real estate taxes to attract citizens outside to inhabit there. Therefore, if old people choose to live there, they would probably find that the local financial standard is very unfavorable.

Additionally, the author provides the second attracting policy which would not be realized in the future. The reality that promise offered by C's mayor would not truly be taken into action. Moreover, the promised programs which aim to improve schools and streets would not benefit those old retirees. They are unlikely to spend time in schools; as far as the streets are concerned, maybe old people lack vigor to walk and amble. Considering the public services, what can be defined as satisfied services to those retirees? Without advices from those future retirees, any promise made now would be null.

Furthermore, the most considerable conducive policy that C has higher rate of physicians above the average level of nation is not so convincing. It is true that C has many physicians, but the high number is not equal with their proficient abilities to help retirees on their diseases. It is fairly possible that those physicians are mostly dentists or pediatrists. Undoubtedly, they are unable to guarantee helpful and sound professional recommendations to those old retirees.

To sum up, besides the conspicuous natural advantages, there exists no more favorable advantages in C. Those provided beneficial policies on economy and medical levels are not so warranted. Thereby, he stumbles during his deduction process.