argument177 TV or books (greaw)11

suyueUID: 2181126

TOPIC: ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
WORDS: 454          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007/8/18 13:07:37
拼写错误9处
This argument concluds (concludes)that the Oak City Civic Club(CCC) should continue to be restricted to peoplr (people)who live in Oak City. To justify this conclusion the author notes that the nonresidents of Oak City cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. The author also cites various other evidence to justify the conclusion. However after close scrutiny of each of these facts, I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.


To begin with, the author listed little evidence to prove that the people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. There is possibility that some people have worked in the city for many years and relize (realize)all kinds of facts of the city. Without ruling out this possibility, the author cannot draw the conclusion safely.


Futher (further)more, the author cite that only residents who pay city taxes which is little indication that only residents understand how the money could best used to improve the city. There is no evidence has been show that these nonresidents of Oak City need not pay the taxes. Even assuming that Oak City do not need the nonresidents' taxes at all, this argument contains no evidence to support that only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. Lacking such evidence is equally possibly that the nonresidents who worded in Oak City konw (know)many shortcomings and defects of the city by comparing of thse (these)cites they live in. Since the artical (article)fails to account for this alternative explanation for the information of nonresidents, the author cannot make any sound recommendations to restricting of membership to city residents.


What is more important, the author cites the information of Elm city to prove his conclusion that restricting membership will not disappoint many of the nonresidents. However, the author overlooks the different conditon(condition) of the two cites. It is entirely possible that the nonresidents who employed in Oak city are very enthusiastically to the CCC. What is more, the information of the Elm city is about the last ten years. It is possibly that the condition has a great change in this year, and the most of nonresidents want to join in the City's club. Without accounting for these possibilities the author cannot justifiably conclude that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint the nonresidents.


In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. Before I can accept it's conclusion, the author must porvide (provide)better evidence that the nonresidents who work in the Oak City do not understand the business and politics of the city. To better assess the argument I would need more information about nonresidents of Oak City.