[a习作temp] argument151 怎么会越写越不顺手了呢？ [复制链接]

xlj
UID：2316543

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 204
注册时间: 2007-3-19
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-1 00:07:01 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT151 - The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper.

"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."
WORDS: 408 TIME: 0:32:00 DATE: 2007-3-31

In this argument, the arguer claims that former Mayor Durant (D) owes an apology to the city of Atticus (A). To support the conclusion the arguer points out the damage to the River Bridge (RB) and the traffic problems on the bridge, and makes a comparison between the RB and Derby Bridge (DB). However a careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that none of the damage or problems would have occurred if D had approved a wider and better-designed bridge. 20 years are so long, any bridge would have some damages and problems after such a long time, even a wider and better-designed bridge. And we do not know whether there was a better case than RB 20 years ago. Maybe at that time the citizens all thanked D for he approved to build the bridge. So without these evidence the arguer cannot draw any conclusion hastily just on the base of mere fact.

In the second place, the arguer commits a false analogy between RB and DB. The arguer ignores other factors that might have made the RB deteriorate much more rapidly than DB over the past 20 years. It is entirely possible that RB was more heavily used than DB during the 20 years. Or the weather that RB belongs to was worse than DB belongs to. As the arguer shows that the winters have been severe in the past several years. Beside this, the building problems, mending conditions, increasing traffic and so on; all of this can lead the RB's damage and problems. So lacking such possibilities the arguer cannot convince us that D are responsible for the matter.

Finally, the arguer ignores other positive effect that the RB brings. The arguer just sees the damage and problems, but do not see the positive. In the 20 years, RB might make the citizens more convenient, and if there is not the bridge, A's economy and other aspects might be undeveloped. So the arguer cannot ignores the positive aspect, and simply draw the conclusion.

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. So to solidity and better assess the argument the arguer would have to offer more evidence and information about the using condition of the two bridges and other factors that might lead the RB's problems.

回应
0

使用道具举报

superstar008
UID：2318905

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1223
注册时间: 2007-3-24
精华: 1
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2007-4-1 08:18:40 |只看该作者

In this argument, the arguer claims that former Mayor Durant (D) owes an apology to the city of Atticus (A). To support the conclusion the arguer points out the damage to the River Bridge (RB) and the traffic problems on the bridge, and makes a comparison between the RB and Derby Bridge (DB). However a careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless（这个词行吗？我也不太清楚，不过例文有那么多好用的词。。。） the conclusion is.
开头似乎还是稍罗嗦了一点，至少在gter这里看到的，开头就不用restate论据了。

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that none of the damage or problems would have occurred if D had approved a wider and better-designed bridge. 20 years are so long(不如直接去掉，后面的such a a long time改成20　years), any（even a better designed） bridge would have some damages and problems after such a long time, even a wider and better-designed bridge. And(Moreover,其实个人觉得这才是重点，那时可能根本没有更好的方案，市长同意的就已经是最好的了） we do not know whether there was a better case than RB 20 years ago. Maybe at that time the citizens all thanked D for he approved to build the bridge（这个不太有力，强调决策是对的，桥有多么好）. So without these evidence the arguer cannot draw any conclusion hastily just on the base of mere fact.

In the second place, the arguer commits a false analogy between RB and DB(个人意见，TS最好写细点，具体怎么个False analogy在第一句就说明）. The arguer ignores other factors that might have made the RB deteriorate much more rapidly than DB over the past 20 years. It is entirely possible that RB was more heavily used than DB during the 20 years. Or the weather that RB belongs to was worse than DB belongs to. As the arguer shows that the winters have been severe in the past several years.（再加上一句比较好，yet no evidence showed the servere winters have nothing to do with the bridge's damage） Beside this, the building problems, mending conditions, increasing traffic and so on; all of this can lead the RB's damage and problems. So lacking(without elimating) such possibilities the arguer cannot convince us that D are responsible for the matter.

Finally, the arguer ignores other positive effect that the RB brings. The arguer just sees the damage and problems, but do not see the positive. In the 20 years, RB might make the citizens more convenient, and if there is not the bridge, A's economy and other aspects might be undeveloped. So the arguer cannot ignores the positive aspect, and simply draw the conclusion.
个人感觉，这段似乎更应该强调即使D决策有误，桥就是不如R的，也不能都归罪于D，其他因素也影响这个桥的建设和质量，也许当时的市政人员都倾向这个桥而影响了市长决策，也许桥设计本身没问题，建筑队偷工减料了，总之错不全在D。原文并没有一句话来否定桥的正面作用，攻击他没注意正面作用有些牵强。

To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis cannot lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. So to solidity and better assess the argument the arguer would have to offer more evidence and information about the using condition of the two bridges and other factors that might lead the RB's problems.

总之除最后一段外感觉还不错，再细些更好。
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-639390-1-1.html拍拍我的吧。

使用道具举报