第一次ScoreItNow同主题

海王泪UID：2673613

困惑1：
提他因、提反例时能Common Sense当然最好
但如果只是一种可能性，是否需要进一步说这种可能性有多大？
换句话说，进一步强化自己提出可能性以达到质疑材料的作用。

E.G.
School的athletic fieldsScott能否被充分使用是一个问题《-天气不好云云，场地无法被充分利用（反例）《-Scott Woods听上去像林地，降雨量较多（反例可能性）

变量是加了粗体的部分，是否进一步论述他因或反例存在的可能性有助于提高分数。

海王泪UID：2673613

IF与否
【变量】If条件状语从句
【猜测】ERADER是否有可能判断这个Indication？
        当指出作者论述成立的条件或假设、或为自己提出的可能性加限定条件时，通常看上去更严谨一些。
【不合理处】1.文章部分内容If功能与Because重合，不知道会否丧失变量意义。
            2.两篇文章字数没控好，前者518后者497，怕刚好撞上分水岭。
        
P.S.粗体标注的是If与没有If的切换部分
--------------------------------------------------------------------
我是If了N次的分隔线
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter to the local paper supports Morganton to build a school with athletic fields at natural, undeveloped Scott Woods. As far as I am concerned, the suggestion would not work well as what the author thinks if he fail to notice what issue the locals really consider about.

The author first points out "if the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there." It is true that locals have objected to the building of malls or domicile in Scott Woods, but what they really care is not what to buildbut how to keep. That is, Morganton need a natural, undeveloped landscape. The author falsely treats locals as those who were not satisfied with the former plan about how to use the land, and thus think they have waited for a new one to develop Scott Wood. Unfortunately, if they had not cared about an undeveloped space, they would have embraced more commerce or living area before the current plan. In fact, there is a story about inhabitants who favors their original beauty. A new school cannot avoid destroying it.

The current plan not only fails to provide natural scenery but also benefits much smaller population than before. Residents perhaps just want to keep Scott Woods as commonage, shared by anyone in the town. When locals could not bear shopping centers, which are enjoyed by some merchandisers and consumers, or houses, which owned by certain families, how could they be willing to vote for a school available to only several hundred of boys and girls? If not having several troubling kids, it is very possible that residents would argue strongly against a new school. They perhaps are reluctant to see welfare limited to only “a large majority of children” which contributes a small percentage to overall populations in Morganton.

Suppose town citizen reconsider the issue, thinking more about their kids, the use of land as athletic fields may not be worth if it fail to improve the quality of children’s lives. It is the purpose of athletic fields to provide area for sports like running, jumping, playing football and so on. Ironically, children, if not as mature as those in college, can also run, jump and play football at an open space of natural parkland. They can even have more fun when variety of landform in natural park, if really undeveloped, produces more activity: a lake for swimming, trees for climbing, or maybe a hill for hiking. Kids could enjoy much more in a natural park than that in an athletic field if still fixed by traditional circumference.

By comparing with a natural park, constructing a new school cannot make the best use of this land as what the author concludes. They are different in functions; they are different in beneficial population. Even worse, to children, the substantial acreage devoted to athletic fields may not work as well as being an original natural park. Therefore, what the author suggests in the letter probably is not suitable to the Morganton, where has located a unique Scott Wood if irreversible after development.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
我是没有If的分隔线 (或改写、或删除)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter to the local paper supports Morganton to build a school with athletic fields at natural, undeveloped Scott Woods. As far as I am concerned, the suggestion may not work well because the author fails to notice what issue the locals really consider about.

The author first points out "if the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there." It is true that locals have objected to the building of malls or domicile in Scott Woods, but what they really care is not what to build but how to keep. That is, Morganton need a natural, undeveloped landscape. The author falsely treats locals as those who were not satisfied with the former plan about how to use the land, and thus think they have waited for a new one to develop Scott Wood. Unfortunately, residents refused developing plan not for an abnegation of more commerce or more living area. In fact, there is a story about inhabitants who favors their original beauty.A new school cannot avoid destroying it.

The current plan not only fails to provide natural scenery but also benefits much smaller population than before. Residents perhaps just want to keep Scott Woods as commonage, shared by anyone in the town. When locals could not bear shopping centers, which are enjoyed by some merchandisers and consumers, or houses, which owned by certain families, how could they be willing to vote for a school available to only several hundred of boys and girls? Not every family has several troubling kids for sending to school；most of the residents in Morganton may not agree with a new school. They perhaps are reluctant to see welfare limited to only “a large majority of children” which contributes a small percentage to overall populations in Morganton.

Suppose town citizen reconsider the issue, thinking more about their kids, the use of land as athletic fields may fail to improve the quality of children’s lives due to specific local conditions. It is the purpose of athletic fields to provide area for sports like running, jumping, playing football and so on. Ironically, children can also run, jump and play football at an open space of natural parkland. They can even have more fun when variety of landform in undeveloped natural park produces more activity: a lake for swimming, trees for climbing, or maybe a hill for hiking. Kids could enjoy much more in a natural park than that in an athletic field fixed by traditional circumference.

By comparing with a natural park, constructing a new school cannot make the best use of this land as what the author concludes. They are different in functions; they are different in beneficial population. Even worse, to children, the substantial acreage devoted to athletic fields may not work as well as being an original natural park. Therefore, what the author suggests in the letter probably is not suitable to the Morganton, where has located a unique, irreversible Scott Wood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S.写得很僵硬。。。呃～但还是希望能成为幸运儿~ ^_^
P.S. (Feb.22) 稍作修改，语法不好~555 自己都给If混淆了。。

海王泪UID：2673613

人工置顶！感谢IQ版··
期待后续评价！