一篇ScoreItNow判定的4分Argument

poohUID: 146994

这个题目在范文里见过。 才4分，狂晕，还是不知道到底哪里有问题。大家都来找问题！！！本来还认为argument可以提分，掉以轻心了。。。

统计：
11处拼写错误
grammar 错2处
Number of Words: 523
Number of Sentence:22
每句平均：23.80个单词

[B]eRater hasn't identified a thesis in your essay. A thesis is the most important sentence in an essay.[/B]
估计这就是得分低的很重要的一个原因。
看来那些套话开头真的是不保险！！！大家小心使用模板！不管别人的还是自己总结的。


Topic:


The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. "Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
Your Answer:


In this argument, the author alleges that the best use of Scott Woods is to build a school there , thus a large majority of children could participate in sports at the same time Scotte Woods could continue to benefit the community as a natural parkland. At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer examination discloses that it is based on faulty reasoning which consequently detracts the validityf from the conclusion.


The first and most flaring problem with the argument is that the author assumes that the building of school in Scott Woods will continue the land as a naureal parkland. It is well known that, a building of school needs space in the woods , so that trees in the woods may be cut down and give way to a school. At the same time, many workers are needed to build a school , thus, it is unavoidable that there will be many people in Scott Woods and they could step on th grass and throw waste at hand. All those deeds will ruin the trees and original appearance of Scott Wood. Moreover, think about what the land will look like after the building of the school. It is said in the argument that a large majority will participate the school. It is likely that the land will become another center of the town, because when children join school here, paretns may drive their children to school so that the land will destoryed by tyres. Imagine what is more terrible: it is likely that many companies aim at perchase of students could also move to Scott Woods and sell products to students there. Additionally, I doubt whether it is feasible to provide a large majority of children a place to paticipate in sports. Because sports cours need room, which is unavoidable to destory trees and lands and still that may not satisfy every child. It is likely that there are many children that like sports. For instance, more than one footable square are needed. Therefore, the building of school may not wise after considering above reasons.


Another place open to dout is that whether the building of school is the best choice for Scott Woods or there may be other better use of it. The author fails to propound other feasible plan for the land. For instance, the natural park could commercialize in order to gain more profit. Although the speaker have noticed that shopping centers or houses built there could harm the natural resources there, to keep the land undeveloped is also a waste. The feasible plan for the park could be the fact that people should pay to visit the park, so that the park could have more fund to keep the natural resources and till have some profit.

To recapitulate my point, the argument is unconvincing and the author makes the conclusion recklessly, since he or she hasn't had a overall consideration of the influence of building a school in Scott Wood, at the same time fails to think of other plans for the park . Therefore, a better plan and consideration are needed before any conclusion is reached.

DriverEntryUID: 143979

首先看原文的逻辑：他说“if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.”这个地方就有问题。为什么不建购物中心和房子，SCOTT就会以自然公园的形式造福社区呢？不建购物中心和房子等同于不开发吗？造医院，工厂,科研中心，军事基地等算不算建房子？有没有影响SCOTT自然公园的性质？我觉得按照信的作者的逻辑，以上那些是不算的，因为好像造学校也不算。这个地方显然是不对的。

Pooh mm攻击的那两个地方确实也都有错误，但是感觉第一个错误攻击的重点好像不是很准。并不是建学校需要的材料等破坏了SCOTT的自然特征，而是造学校本身破坏了SCOTT。因为造学校需要一大片平地，（而且体育场需要的更多），这些占地本身就破坏了SCOTT地植被。按照信的作者地逻辑，他似乎天真地认为用作体育场的地方可以保留原始的自然风貌，这点也显然是错误的。足球场的草地和天然的草地根本是两回事，足球场的草地只是适合看和踩。而天然的草地可以发出更多氧气，可以做为许多动物的栖息地。
第二个错误攻击的比较到位。

总的来说这个ARGU比较难写，主要是攻击的地方不是我们所熟悉的PORFIT，FALSE ANALOGY之类，在30分钟内确实比较难写好。不过我觉得 pooh mm有可能是错误攻击的不够准而造成分数较低。

一家之见，欢迎大家批评。

poohUID: 146994

DriveEntry :说的有道理，我的确是有很多错误没有发现。考的时候有些慌，时间太紧了，题目都没有很仔细地看。

poohUID: 146994

ETS给出的6分范文，我都没怎么看懂 ft

Topic:


The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. "Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."


This argument is not fully developed. The first statement is that the town decided to keep the piece of property undeveloped, thereby benefiting the community as public parkland. How is the property in its undeveloped state to be used as public parkland, which would be safe and useful to the citizens of the community? Does public parkland not deem the property as developed, at least partially to be of any use in this capacity? Green Glenn may continue to benefit from the lands being undeveloped if and only if the natural elements of the land were of an environmental benefit to the community, not by its use as a parkland.

Another issue that needs to be discussed in the development of the land into a school site is the transfer of sale to another entity and how the community will maintain control over the land once it has been removed from public ownership into the hands of the town planning committee. From whence will the money come for the development of the land? What, if any, preventative measures are being taken to ensure that the developers will not change their mind and build houses and/or shopping centers in Green Glenn? Does the town need a new school? What are the current arrangements for public education and community sports and are they in need of this type of property renovation in order to sustain the community? Would the development of the property into a school be of greater benefit to the community than its use as an undeveloped plot for the environmental benefit?

That substantial acreage is not definitely being devoted to athletic fields， should cause the people of the community concern. How many buildings will the school entail and what havoc will these buildings wreak on the environment? Will the negative results of improving the land be worth the cost to the community? Green Glenn would no longer be public parkland if it were used to be developed into a school after being sold into the ownership of the town planning committee. Where do the children currently participate in sports and what is the need for new fields and arenas for the for the children to continue with their sports? Is the community supported by enough growth to guarantee that the decision to develop the land would still be a positive one in the future? What objections, if any, are being raised to the use of the land for this project and not for the partial development of the land into a park and athletic fields maintaining as much of the lands natural elements as possible?

The argument needs to be precise about answering all these questions. It needs to include a sketch of the plans for the property and data collated to inform of the rates of growth and the rate of usage of the development by the community over time. It needs to discuss the plans specifically so that the expectations of the community are understood and outlined before the sale is made. More information needs to be given about who will benefit from the changes and in what manner the benefits will come. Will the area maintain any of its previous natural elements? Will the buildings and structure be environmentally suited to the area and be composed of environmentally safe materials?

The argument would be more persuasive if the entire project was conceived, and carried out by long standing member of the community. It is necessary to know from whom this proposal originates and why it comes in so few years since the property was originally deemed to be kept undeveloped. Evidence of need for these changes and examples of how the needs will be met need to be specified in order for this argument to be persuasive. Mention needs to be made of reasons for this property not to be developed and then counterarguments with supporting examples need to be made as to the benefits would make their proposal much more persuasive.