argument63 第一次限时 请斧正

Colin_buptUID??2305453

TOPIC: ARGUMENT63 - When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed the park's drop in popularity: the recordings showed an average of only 50 cars per day. In contrast, tiny Carlton Park in the heart of the business district is visited by more than 150 people on a typical weekday. An obvious difference is that Carlton Park, unlike Stanley Park, provides ample seating. Thus, if Stanley Park is ever to be as popular with our citizens as is Carlton Park, the town will obviously need to provide more benches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable for socializing.
WORDS: 398  （不算红色的）        TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-25 21:31:40

红色字体的是后来补上的，总共是472字
自己感觉语言很是问题，开头很罗嗦，全文没有大的语法问题，但也没有什么闪光句型，感觉很平淡；另外打字速度也有问题（总打错）。
还好离机考还有一个多月。请各位大虾斧正；另外顺便问下怎么组成互助小组呢？

In this argument, the author claims that Stanley Park should be provided with more benches in order to be as popular with the citizens as Carlton Park. To justify this claim, the arguer makes the assumption that Stanley Park is no longer heavily used on the basis that the video cameras' recordings showed an average of only 50 cars in the parking lots per day. Also the author provides the evidence that Carlton Park is visited by 150 people on a typical weekday and this park provides ample seating to show Carlton Park is more popular with the citizens. However, after careful scrutiny, this argument is fraught with flaws that make it unconvincing.

First in the place, the mere fact that there are only 50 cars per day on average lends little support to the assumption that Stanley suffers a drop in popularity. Maybe the park is near to the houses of the city's residents, so they do not need to drive to the park. Or maybe the percentage of car ownerships in this city is not high, thus fewer people can afford to drive cars to the park. Also the evidence that Carlton Park is visited by 150 people on a typical weekday cannot justify the assumption. Perhaps Stanley Park received more visitors on weekdays. In a word, the statistics in this comparison cannot be indication that the author's assumption holds.

Secondly, the author fails to provide clear evidence that ample seating has increased Carlton's popularity. Even if Carlton is more popular, the reasons can be various. Perhaps the Carlton provides more entertainments; or Perhaps the ticket is much cheaper; or perhaps the environment there is more comfortable; any of the cases would improve the popularity of Carlton. Thus, the arguer does not identify all the factors that may affect the popularity of Carlton, which will weaken the author's dubious assumption that ample seating has increased Carlton's popularity.

In addition, even if the above assumption can hold, that is, ample seating increased Carlton's popularity, the author still makes a hasty conclusion that similar method would also work for Stanley Park. But their locations are quite different according to the argument, which may have an impact on the effect of increasing the seating. Other potential differences must be also taken into account. Unless the author provides more information that can show the similarity between the two parks, I would not be convinced by this dubious conclusion.

In sum, the author makes several flaws in this argument. To better strengthen this argument, the author must provide more evidence to show Stanley’s dropping in popularity; and the author should figure out the causal relationship between the ample seating and the increased popularity of Carlton Park; finally the author should find the similarity between the two parks that can lend support to the final conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 Colin_bupt 于 2007-7-25 23:17 编辑 ]

Colin_buptUID??2305453

初来乍到，没有认真看发帖要求，请斑竹见谅。。。

Colin_buptUID??2305453

请达人回一下呀，是不是这篇写的太差啦～～～
新手真的需要朋友们的支持呀。。