[a习作temp] Argument158 【challenge yourself】第一次作业by linyunf [复制链接]

In the second place, even if the numbers are representative, the analysis made by the council was wrong. The study's result does indicate that there are correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in those homes though the correlation was not so significant. If we note that the study just covered only 300 people and if there are just 3 people who get rashes, it will make up 1% of the whole people. The council's conclusion is certainly careless and the council is indifferent with the local people's feeling about the garbage sites as we can't find any suggestion that the council has asked the people there in the study. So without getting the views of the local people about the decisions and the rashes that emerge among their neighbor, the decision is questionable.

In the last place, the study has found that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes but the council just ignored the result and quibbled that the correlation didn't exist. So why did the council make the study? Fact is fact. As long as the people living near the largest trash sites had more incidences of the rashes, the council has to place restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

In sum, the council's study may probably don’t make any sense and the council's analysis was not responsible and indifferent. The decisions made are totally wrong if the study was conducted properly and the result did reflect the situation there.

The council announces that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a critical health hazard and will not restrict the size of such sites or place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites. I find that the recent study and its analysis which the decision base(based) on do not make sense and can't support the decision at all.In the first place, the study just examined a total of five sites and 300 people, making the study useless, unless the author presents that the numbers are representative. Maybe there are much more people and garbage sites in the whole state, just consider the word "state". The study has to(一般都是用must吧。。) be done in a larger scale if the council really wants to know the real situation.(连续两个real。。会不会不太好哇？)

In the second place, even if the numbers are representative, the analysis made by the council was wrong. The study's result does indicate that there are correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in those homes though the correlation was not so significant. If we note that the study just covered only 300 people and if there are just 3 people who get rashes, it will make up 1% of the whole people. The council's conclusion is certainly careless and the council is indifferent with the local people's feeling about the garbage sites as we can't find any suggestion that the council has asked the people there in the study. So without getting the views of the local people about the decisions and the rashes that emerge among their neighbor, the decision is questionable.(这一段的论述我觉得很有道理，也很新颖：)　呵呵)

In the last place, the study has found that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes but the council just ignored the result and quibbled that the correlation didn't exist. So why did the council make the study? Fact is fact. As long as the people living near the largest trash sites had more incidences of the rashes, the council has to place restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

In sum, the council's study may probably don’t(语法不太对吧) make any sense and the council's analysis was not responsible and indifferent. The decisions made are totally wrong if(unless) the study was conducted properly and the result did reflect the situation there.