【10G10Hawk】小组7月30日任务——Argument237

谦行天下UID: 2797557

今日作业Argument237：

The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.
'According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here.'

一改楼下改楼上
二改楼上改楼下

补充作业BS自愿参加！
BS草稿贴：
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1126976-1-1.html
BS题目（该文为本周最后一次作文）

120"So much is new and complex today that looking back for an understanding of the past provides little guidance for living in the present."

谦行天下UID: 2797557

这篇文章写得不是很满意额~~

This argument presented several phenomena, but the author fails to convince readers the causal and effect relationship between them. Why two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton (D) is caused by the change policies in the tax rate? Why the same thing will happen in the other place Beauville (B) without considering the differences between B and D? And why are tax incentives the fastest way for stimulating economic development and reduce unemployment in B without analyzing other methods? The argument suffers from several logical flaws as below:

The author present the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to D after new tax and other financial inducements began putting into force, but he/she fails to establish the cause and effect relationship between them. 18 months seems not an immediate effect of the new regulations, which may add my confusions for the question that what is the true reason for the two companies moved to D. Perhaps, D serves good quality of raw materials for the two companies. Perhaps, D is close to a newly developed market for the two companies. Or perhaps, D has numerous labors who can accept working with low salaries. The argument lack the directing evidence to prove that the two companies moved into D is because of the new regulations.

Even assuming D benefit from the claimed regulations in the argument, it is too hasty conclude that B will benefit from the similar policies as D. The author has not provided any information about B's economy. Perhaps B does not have extra space for new companies now. It can't help anything if the government lowers the corporate tax rate. Perhaps B has a special culture that rejects companies from outer world. Or perhaps, the corporate tax rate is very low in B now. It will result in unbearable burdens if the government lowers the tax rate.

Also, it is headlong for the author to conclude that the elaborated way is the fastest way to stimulate economics. The author hasn't analyzed what is the advantage for the economical development. Perhaps, B has a lot of undeveloped tourism resources. The best way would be trying to attract companies to invest to tourism. Perhaps, B has many mineral lodes that B had better think way to utilize the lobes. Or perhaps, the fastest way to stimulate B’s economics is export.

All in all, the author’s conclusion that if B uses the similar economic incentives as D, the unemployment will be reduced is untenable. To substantiate his/her standpoint, the follow things need to be down: (1) the cause and effect relationship between new policies and the occurrence of two moving in companies in D needs to be established; (2) a comprehensive compare of the economical type between D and B needs to be analyzed; (3) the conclusion of the fastest way to improve economic development needs to be reconsidered.

===========第一次自改文============
被9号拍过之后
This argument presented several phenomena, but the author fails to convince readers the causal and effect relationship between them. Why two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton (D) is caused by the change policies in the tax rate? Why the same thing will happen in the other place Beauville (B) without considering the differences between B and D? And why are tax incentives the fastest way for stimulating economic development and reduce unemployment in B without analyzing other methods? The argument suffers from several logical flaws as below:

The author present the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to D after new tax and other financial inducements began putting into force, but he/she fails to establish the cause and effect relationship between them. 18 months seems not an immediate effect of the new regulations, which may add my confusions for the question that what is the true reason for the two companies moved to D. Perhaps, D serves good quality of raw materials for the two companies. Perhaps, D is close to a newly developed market for the two companies. Or perhaps, D has numerous labors who can accept working with low salaries. The argument lack the directing evidence to prove that the two companies moved into D is because of the new regulations.

Even assuming D benefits from the claimed regulations in the argument, it is too hasty conclude that B will benefit from the similar policies as D. The author has not provided any information about B's economy. Perhaps B does not have extra space for new companies now. It can't help anything if the government lowers the corporate tax rate. Or perhaps, the corporate tax rate is very low in B now. It will result in unbearable burdens if the government lowers the tax rate.

Also, it is headlong for the author to conclude that the
described way
is the fastest way to stimulate economics. The author hasn't analyzed what is the advantage for the economic development. Perhaps, B has a lot of undeveloped tourism resources. The best way would be trying to attract companies to invest to tourism. Perhaps, B has many mineral lodes that B had better think way to utilize the lobes. Or perhaps, the fastest way to stimulate B’s economics is export.

All in all, the author’s conclusion that if B uses the similar economic incentives as D, the unemployment will be reduced is untenable. To substantiate his/her standpoint, the follow things need to be down: (1) the cause and effect relationship between new policies and the occurrence of two moving in companies in D needs to be established; (2) a comprehensive compare of the economical type between D and B needs to be analyzed; (3) the conclusion of the fastest way to improve economic development needs to be reconsidered.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改9号

Wrong
Not understand
New words to me
My comment
Good Expression
The notion that Beauville should provide tax incentives and other financial inducements to attract private companies seems to be sound and convincing. After all, In Dillton, within 18 months after it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton. However, close scrutiny reveals that none of these evidence lend credible support to stimulate economic development and reduce unemployment in Beauville.

First of all, the mid-conclusion that the revolution leads to the quicker development and the decline of unemployment in Dillton is doubtable. As the author does not provide any information about the economic environment in Dillton, we can not know how many manufacturing companies move into Dillton in average 18 months before the revolution. Chances are that far more than 2 manufacturing companies move into Dillton and the revolution actually decreased the rate.观点的论证有说服力！ And even if the number of manufacturing companies moved into Dillton increased, what about other companies? Maybe this revolution cased many other companies except manufacturing companies to leave Dillton.赞！ Furthermore, we have no ideas about the size of Dillton, if it is a big cite like New York, these two companies can do little about the economic development and the rate of unemployment. Not mentioned that the revolution and movement of the manufacturing company can show little more than they happened near the same time. The causal relationship between the revolution and the movement of manufacturing company does not be proved. May be they just happened at same time by chance. Without ruling out all the possibilities I mentioned above, the author cannot get the conclusion that Dillton is benefit from such revolution.
本段展开得很好！
Granted Dillton stimulate the economic development and reduce unemployment, which is an unwarranted assumption of course, the author can not deduce【这个是及物动词】 to the conclusion that it will be the same in Beauville either. Such groundless assumption is based on the premise that Beauville and Dillton are almost the same. However, there is no convincing evidence or even logical discursion to support such opinion. If Beauville is a big city that already have enough manufacturing factories while Dillton is developing city in need of manufacturing companies; or if Beeville’s corporate tax is far less than that in Dillton; or if Beauville is not convenient in geography aspect for the transportation of manufacturing companies, all these will cause fundamental difference between Beauville and Dillton and lead to significant different result after the same revolution. So without enough information and data about the size, culture, geography environment, economic laws and something like that in Beauville and Dillton, the premise is not ensured and will undermine the author's conclusion.
很好！
Besides, the author get【第三人称单数】 the conclusion that it is the fastest way without any comparison with any other way and overlook all the disadvantages of such recommendation【这里用复数，觉得你的指代不是很明确】, which will mislead the readers. How can we know whether it is the fastest based on such limited and vague data? Even if it is the fastest way, if it will cause other problem, like environment pollution, more serious than simulating economic development, such recommendation should not be accepted.

To sum up, this recommendation may benefit Beeville’s economical grow and reduce the rat of unemployed. However, before claim such recommendation, persuasive, practical and professional research and survey should be taken.
结尾有点过于简单了耶！

===================改Maggie====================
Wrong
Not Understand
My Comment
The arguer gives an advice to Beauville that the government might as well encourage private companies to relocate there through the same way as Dillton such as provides tax incentives and the like. To justify this statement, he provides the evidence that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton and employed 300 people when Dillton announced the policy of reducing corporate tax rate by 15 and offering relocation grants and favorable rates. It makes sense at the first glance.可以用分号耶，合为一句 However, after careful examination we can count plenty of flaws out.

First of all, the author【It】 is unreasonable to substantiate the two companies' moving to D is relevant to D's supporting private companies policy. What we only know is that the [delete] two things, companies moving in and getting a multitude of employers and the government's claim, happened in a same time. But this isn't enough to prop up the author's conclusion totally. In the first place, there may be lots of other factors which cause the two to move in. Companies moved to D may on the ground that they have grown themselves larger and larger thus as a result they need to expand business so they built up new in D, and the reasons may also be such as [delete] their corporate business were meeting the plant capacity requirements of D, or the migrant workers are far more than other city or even that the bosses found girlfriends in D. In the second place, the employment of 300 persons can't be attributed to the government either. The two companies found those employers may thanks to the HR's sharpness, or the population of D is already far more than the other cities'. Therefore, in this case if we owe the consequence to D's government's policy it would be too hasty.

Secondly, given that the two companies indeed benefited from D's government, it also lacked of more [some] data to explain all the companies would benefit from it. This argument makes mistakes in data and time. As what we find, there are only two companies suffered感觉是不好的事情 this situation while we have no idea how many companies are there in D in total. There might be a hundreds of, who can tell. The speaker jumps to a conclusion without enough investigation. The speaker need to supply more things like the numbers of companies moving in recently, the situation of old companies in D after the news came, the disparities between those who enjoyed government resources and those didn't and so on. Furthermore, it happened one year ago. The author unfairly assumes that D's current prosperity, if any, results from the policies implemented last year.

Thirdly, to say the least that D's policy of supporting private companies relocating is effectual all right, there is nothing to say that it would also make sense in B. First of all, the geographical environment in B may be different from D which plays an important part in a company's running. Second, the urban conditions such as population, employment status, consumptive level of B may distinct from D as well. What's more, there may live far more beauties and handsome persons where may probably attract boss to migrate. Therefore, granted that the policy is responsible for the prosperity of D, we cannot ensure that B could experience the same prosperity through providing similar incentives.

To be sure that there still exist many other deficiencies. For instance, the arguer ignores other possible methods that may improve B's economy more efficiently, and he fails to substantiate the assumption that during the last 18 months all conditions upon which the effectiveness of the policy depends have remained unchanged and granted such incentives are indeed necessary, the author fails to illustrate why we should target on private companies.

To conclude, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the current economic situation relevant to B's development.
你的文章写得很长，我没有找到太多的错误。有些地方不是很理解，总提到说老板发现D的人格魅力不是不可，但是你的表述似乎有点不是很能说服人，因为事件发生概率太小。

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

TOPIC: ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.

"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."
WORDS: 661
TIME: 01:16:30
DATE: 2010/7/31 11:50:32

The arguer gives an advice to Beauville that the government might as well encourage private companies to relocate there through the same way as Dillton such as provides tax incentives and the like. To justify this statement, he provides the evidence that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton and employed 300 people when Dillton announced the policy of reducing corporate tax rate by 15 and offering relocation grants and favorable rates. It make sense at the first glance. However, after careful examination we can count plenty of flaws out.

First of all the author is unreasonable to substantiate the two companies' moving to D is relevant to D's supporting private companies policy. What we only know is that the two things, companies moving in and getting a multitude of employers and the government's claim, happened in a same time. But this isn't enough to prop up the author's conclude totally. In the first place, there may have lots of other factors which cause the two to move in. Companies moved to D may on the ground that they have grown themselves larger and larger thus as a result they need to expand business so they built up new in D, and the reasons may also be such as their corporate business were meeting the plant capacity requirements of D, or the migrant workers are far more than other city or even that the bosses found girlfriends in D. In the second place, the employment of 300 persons can't be attributed to the government either. The two companies found those employers may thanks to the HR's sharpness, or the population of D is already far more than the other cities'. Therefore, in this case if we owe the consequence to D's government's policy it would be too hasty.

Secondly, given that the two companies indeed benefited from D's government, it also lacked of more data to explain all the companies would benefit from it. This argument makes mistakes in data and time. As what we find, there are only two companies suffered this situation while we have no idea how many companies are there in D in total. There might be a hundreds of, who can tell. The speaker jumps to a conclusion without enough investigation. The speaker need to supply more things like the numbers of companies moving in recently, the situation of old companies in D after news came, the disparities between those who enjoyed government resources and those didn't and so on. Furthermore, it happened one year ago. The author unfairly assumes that D's current prosperity, if any, results from the policies implemented last year.

Thirdly, to say the least that D's policy of supporting private companies relocating is effectual all right, there is nothing to say that it would also make sense in B. First of all, the geographical environment in B may be different from D which plays an important part in a company's running. Second, the urban conditions such as population, employment status, consumptive level of B may distinct from D as well. What's more, there may live far more beautiful and handsome where may probably attract boss to migrate. Therefore, granted that the policy is responsible for the prosperity of D, we cannot ensure that B could experience the same prosperity through providing similar incentives.

To be sure that there still exist many other deficiencies. For instance, the arguer ignores other possible methods that may improve B's economy more efficiently, and he fails to substantiate the assumption that during the last 18 months all conditions upon which the effectiveness of the policy depends have remained unchanged and granted such incentives are indeed necessary, the author fails to illustrate why we should target on private companies.

To conclude, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the current economic situation relevant to B's development.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第一次自改：
The arguer gives an advice to Beauville that the government might as well encourage private companies to relocate there through the same way as Dillton such as provides tax incentives and the like. To justify this statement, he provides the evidence that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton and employed 300 people when Dillton announced the policy of reducing corporate tax rate by 15 and offering relocation grants and favorable rates. It make sense at the first glance. However, after careful examination we can count plenty of flaws out.

First of all, the author is unreasonable to substantiate the two companies' moving to D is relevant to D's supporting private companies policy. What we only know is that the two things, companies moving in and getting a multitude of employers and the government's claim, happened in a same time. But this isn't enough to prop up the author's conclusion totally. In the first place, there may be lots of other factors which cause the two to move in. Companies moved to D may on the ground that they have grown themselves larger and larger thus as a result they need to expand business so they built up new in D, and the reasons may also be such as their corporate business were meeting the plant capacity requirements of D, or the migrant workers are far more than other city or even that the bosses found girlfriends in D. In the second place, the employment of 300 persons can't be attributed to the government either. The two companies found those employers may thanks to the HR's sharpness, or the population of D is already far more than the other cities'. Therefore, in this case if we owe the consequence to D's government's policy it would be too hasty.

Secondly, given that the two companies indeed benefited from D's government, it also lacked of more data to explain all the companies would benefit from it. This argument makes mistakes in data and time. As what we find, there are only two companies suffered this situation while we have no idea how many companies are there in D in total. There might be a hundreds of, who can tell. The speaker jumps to a conclusion without enough investigation. The speaker need to supply more things like the numbers of companies moving in recently, the situation of old companies in D after the news came, the disparities between those who enjoyed government resources and those didn't and so on. Furthermore, it happened one year ago. The author unfairly assumes that D's current prosperity, if any, results from the policies implemented last year.

Thirdly, to say the least that D's policy of supporting private companies relocating is effectual all right, there is nothing to say that it would also make sense in B. First of all, the geographical environment in B may be different from D which plays an important part in a company's running. Second, the urban conditions such as population, employment status, consumptive level of B may distinct from D as well. What's more, there may live far more beauties and handsome persons where may probably attract boss to migrate. Therefore, granted that the policy is responsible for the prosperity of D, we cannot ensure that B could experience the same prosperity through providing similar incentives.

To be sure that there still exist many other deficiencies. For instance, the arguer ignores other possible methods that may improve B's economy more efficiently, and he fails to substantiate the assumption that during the last 18 months all conditions upon which the effectiveness of the policy depends have remained unchanged and granted such incentives are indeed necessary, the author fails to illustrate why we should target on private companies.

To conclude, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the current economic situation relevant to B's development.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

改小谦

This argument presented several phenomena, but the author fails to convince readers the causal and effect relationship between them. Why two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton (D) is caused by the change policies in the tax rate? Why the same thing will happen in the other place Beauville (B) without considering the differences between B and D? And why are tax incentives the fastest way for stimulating economic development and reduce unemployment in B without analyzing other methods? 你在一开始就用了3个反问句，就我看来，是绝对不该这样的，并且每个反问句都是有问题的，QQ详谈The argument suffers from several logical flaws as below:
The author present the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to D after new tax and other financial inducements began putting into force, (and前和and后的内容调换一下，因为and 还是有隐含的事情发生的先后关系在内的)but he/she fails to establish the cause and effect relationship between them. 18 months seems not an immediate effect of the new regulations, which may add my confusions for the question that what is the true reason for the two companies moved to D. Perhaps, D serves good quality of raw materials for the two companies. Perhaps, D is close to a newly developed market for the two companies. Or perhaps, D has numerous labors who can accept working with low salaries. （low salaries是无中生有的）（这边如果一定要用perhaps的话，至少也把句号改成分号吧）The argument lack the directing evidence to prove that the two companies moved into D is because of the new regulations.感觉这段有意义的内容很少
Even assuming D benefit from the claimed regulations in the argument, it is too hasty conclude that B will benefit from the similar policies as D. The author has not provided any information about B's economy. Perhaps B does not have extra space for new companies now. It can't help anything if the government lowers the corporate tax rate. Perhaps B has a special culture that rejects companies from outer world. Or perhaps, the corporate tax rate is very low in B now. It will result in unbearable burdens if the government lowers the tax rate.
Also, it is headlong for the author to conclude that the elaborated（这个词是怎么得出来的？） way is the fastest way to stimulate economics. The author hasn't analyzed what is the advantage for the economical development. Perhaps, B has a lot of undeveloped tourism resources. The best way would be trying to attract companies to invest to tourism. Perhaps, B has many mineral lodes that B had better think way to utilize the lobes. Or perhaps, the fastest way to stimulate B’s economics is export. 这段的首、末句，与中间的论述部分，完全不是在讲同一件事情。你开头的意思大概是D的作法不一定是能够最快刺激经济的作法，然而后面开始,第一个perhaps你说B的首要目的也许是要先把companies吸引过来。。。不管吸引来是投资什么，因为题目也没说吸引来的公司是投资什么的，但你等于是在重复一个题目作者本来就是要使B达到的目的就是把companies吸引过来，那么这个perhaps还有任何意义吗？也许你是想说B市旅游业也许更可以发展，但是旅游业还是其他业都好，它们本身就是本事经济的其中一项，不存在but这个问题。接着第二个perhaps，你是在说也许B有着很大的潜在资源mineral lodes，其实你的意思就是说发展经济并不一定是B的首要任务，它可能有其他更有利于B本市的项目值得先去开发，这个想法是没错的，可是这跟你这段首句阐明的中心句是完全不一样的。一个是在说B市也许有其他的方法才是the fastest way to stimulate economics，而另一个是在说经济不一定是B市的首要任务。最后一个perhaps，又回到了第一句话，但事实上没有说出任何有意义的内容，这个export是export什么呢？你就说去export，那不还是等于重复一下题目么。
All in all, the author’s conclusion that if B uses the similar economic incentives as D, the unemployment will be reduced is untenable. To substantiate his/her standpoint, the follow things need to be down: (1) the cause and effect relationship between new policies and the occurrence of two moving in companies in D needs to be established;（我好像是在这文中第三次看到这句话了，而且是属于那种空话的） (2) a comprehensive compare of the economical type between D and B needs to be analyzed; (3) the conclusion of the fastest way to improve economic development needs to be reconsidered.

总的来说，让人感觉内容很少，每一段句子本来就少了，然后又拨出两句以上去将一些套话，导致真正看下来有内容的东西少，使得整个驳斥很薄弱。你愿意的话，QQ详谈

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
改sharonye

In this argument , the author concludes that providing tax incentives and other finacial inducements is the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hencereduce unemployment. To support his conclusion, he cited the example that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton within 18 months after the city of Dillon reduce its' corporate tax by 15 percent, and began to provide some walfare（查不到这个词） to relocation companies at the same time last year. There are several flaws that would weaken the argument.
First, there is no information about the original cooperate tax in Dillton. It is possible that the tax in Dillton is so high that even it has been reduced by 15 percent, it is still higher than that of Beauvile .If it is the case, reducing tax is of no use for the economy to increase in Beauvile.这段出现得很莫名其妙，就说了一下可能D本身tax就很高，降低15%还是比B高。这应该是作为一个论据出现在你的其中某一个论点的那段里面的，怎么突然跑出来成了一段。
Second , although offering relocation grants and favorable rate on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton would no doubt be a kind of stimulus , will it be the essential alternative for a company to choose its' location? The answer is definitely “No!” As far as I'm concerned, some other factors, such as potential market, material and worker source, environment etc. are all playing more important roles in deciding where to set the factory. After all, what a company really searches for is mostly profits, only a little walfare and benefit could not shape the option of the location of a company ,and only have chance be an auxiliary stimulation .
What’s more, the arguer commits a fallcy（没查到这个词） of false analogy .Only when the condition in the two cities are similar enough can he successful experience in Dillton also work in Beauvile. It may be the （改成a）transport convience, (改成conviction that )cheap worker source and other factors that attracted the two manufacturing companies to set in Dillton（根据你这段在叙述的内容，这里D应该为B）. However, the author said nothing about this kind of similarity, thus, I can’t accept his prediction that the measures taken by Dillton government will also bring the benefit mentioned in the argument.
All in all, the arguer can’t convince me of any thing without more additional evidence . In my personnal（去掉） view, in order to have the economy growth , the government of Beauvile should make a datial study of the advantages and disadvantages in Beauvile ,creating the strategy fitting best for itself.

整个论证很混乱，正文之间没有循序渐进的逻辑论证，而且一些用词和句子也还很高中。并且有一点，建议你以后写完后先贴到word里面自己检查一遍，至少能把错别词先自己改过来了，我贴到word里的时候红了一大片。如果有疑惑的话，老样子，QQ详谈。

sharonyeUID: 2862009

In this arguement , the author concludes that providing tax incentives and other finacial inducements is the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence
reduce unemployment.To spport his conclusion ,he cited the example that
two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton within 18 mouths after the city of Dillon reduce its' corporate tax by 15 percent,and
began to provide some walfare to relocation companies at the same time last year.There are several flaws that would weaken the argument.

First,there is no information about the original corperrate tax in Dillton.It is possible that the tax in Dillton is so high that even it has been reduced by 15 percent ,it is still higher than that of Beauvile .If it is the case ,reducing tax is of no use for the economy to increase in Beauvile.

Second , although offering
relocation grands and favourable rate on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton would no doubt be a kind of stimulus , will it be the enscential
alternative
for a company to choose its' location? The answer is definitely “No!” As far as i'm concerned ,some other factors ,such as potential market ,material and worker source ,environment etc. are all playing more important roles in deciding where to set the factory.After all ,what a company really searches for is mostly profits , only a little walfare and benefit could not shape the option of the location of a company ,and only have chance
be an auxiliary stimulation .

What’s
more ,the arguer commits a fallcy of false analogy .Only when the condition in the two cities are similar enough can
the
successful experience in Dillton also work in Beauvile . It may be the transport convience ,cheap worker source and other factors that attracted
the two manufacturing campanies to set in Dillton . However ,the auther said nothing about this kind of similarity,thus ,I can’t accept his prediction that the measures taken by Dillton government will also bring the benefit mentioned in the argument.

All in all
,the arguer can”t convince me of any thing without more additional evidence . In my personnal view, in order to have the economy growth , the government of Beauvile should make a datial study of the advantages and disadvantages in Beauvile ,creating the strategy fitting best for itself.

sharonyeUID: 2862009

2The arguer gives an advice to Beauville that the government might as well encourage private companies to relocate there through the same way as Dillton such as provides tax incentives and the like. To justify this statement, he provides the evidence that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton and employed 300 people when Dillton announced the policy of reducing corporate tax rate by 15 and offering relocation grants and favorable rates. It make sense at the first glance. However, after careful examination we can count plenty of flaws out.
First of all， the author is unreasonable to substantiate the two companies' moving to D（可以这样些么？） is relevant to D's supporting private companies policy. What we only know is that the two things, companies moving in and getting a multitude of employers and the government's claim, happened in a same time. But this isn't enough to prop up the author's conclusion totally. In the first place, there may be lots of other factors which cause the two to move in. Companies moved to D may on the ground that they have grown themselves larger and larger ,thus ,as a result they need to expand business,so they built up new in D.And the reasons may also be such as their corporating business were meeting the plant(做什么意思) capacity requirements of D, or the migrant workers are far more than other city or even that the bosses found girlfriends in D（同学，你这个观点，真佩服）. In the second place, the employment of 300 persons can't be attributed to the government either. The two companies found those employees may thanks（
thank）to the HR's sharpness（我觉得这里可以用other city，而并不仅限于HR）, or the population of D is already far more than the other cities'. Therefore, in this case if we owe the consequence to D's government's policy it would be too hasty.
Secondly, given that the two companies indeed benefited from D's government, it also lacked of more data（不是表数据么） to explain all the companies would benefit from it. This argument makes mistakes in data and time. As what we find, there are only two companies suffered this situation while we have no idea how many companies are there in D in total. There might be a hundreds of, who can tell.（好口语化，我觉得还是少用） The speaker jumps to a conclusion without enough investigation. The speaker need to supply more things like the numbers of companies moving in recently, the situation of old companies in D after news came, the disparities between those who enjoyed government resources and those didn't and so on. Furthermore, it happened one year ago. The author unfairly assumes that D's current prosperity, if any, results from the policies implemented last year.
Thirdly, to say the least that D's policy of supporting private companies relocating is effectual all right, there is nothing to say that it would also make sense in B. First of all, the geographical environment in B may be different from D which plays an important part in a company's running. Second, the urban conditions such as population, employment status, consumptive level of B may distinct from D as well. What's more, there may live far more beautiful and handsom(应该是个名词吧) where may probably attract boss to migrate. Therefore, granted that the policy is responsible for the prosperity of D, we cannot ensure that B could experience the same prosperity through providing similar incentives.
To be sure that there still exist many other deficiencies. For instance, the arguer ignores other possible methods that may improve B's economy more efficiently, and he fails to substantiate the assumption that during the last 18 months all conditions upon which the effectiveness of the policy depends have remained unchanged and granted such incentives are indeed necessary, the author fails to illustrate why we should target on private companies.
To conclude, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the current economic situation relevant to B's development.

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

TOPIC: ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.

"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."
WORDS: 373          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2010/7/29 15:56:01

This argument is well-presented, but includes some aspects that are questionable. By analyzing the success of the city of Dillton (D), the argument for that our Beauville (B) should follow D's policy seems logical.

However, the author fails to rule out the possible differeces between D and B. For instance, their location, population, market and so forth are all these factors need to be concerned. Every company wants to relocate in a city with a great market for their products or near places produce their raw materials. Therefore, where the city locate are very important to attract companies. What's more, whether the company will empoly citizens in your city is determined by citizens abilities. No company employ workers without ablities  only thinking about their needs of labors. So the ablities and knowledge of citizens are also need to be compared.

Another important thing to consider is the feasibility of this policy in Beauville and whether having any other method better than this. Without evalutation of the feasibility of this policy I can hardly agree with authors conclusion. Whether B have enough place to offer to new companies and whether we have already under financial problems and have not ablities to provide low tax rates are facts important in author's logical chain. If one of these facts above happerned in B, we should reevalute the feasibility of this suggestion. In additon, any other method better than this haven't been discussed in this argument. And it's incredible that the author hastily conclude that his suggestion is the fastest way. If comparing with other policy, it may contribute to author's argument.

Last but not least, the policy in last year is efficient, but in this year whether it still has efficiency is open to doubt. Over time, the conditions of the cities are changing. For instance, the conditions of economy or employment will determine whether new company can move to our city. And the statements of other cities are as the same importance as economy condition. If most of our nearly cities adopt this policy, almost no superiority we own to other cities. What's worse, no superiority means companies may not replace to B and we lose local companies' favor. Part of local companies could replaced to other cities. If it happens, we get nothing but lose what we have had. Hence, before making such a decision, we should consider lots of conditions like what have been mentioned above.

In sum, the author's evidence accomplishes little to supporting his/her argument for suggesting B to adopt this policy tostimulate economic and reduce unemployment. To further bolster the argument the author must provide better evidence, perhaps the comparison between D and B in many fields. Or perhaps analysis about some other policies for the same destination. If providing the situation about the companies still willing to relocate in an area with low rates, this argument will not sway the author's suggestion.

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

In this arguement , the author concludes that providing tax incentives and other finacial inducements is the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment.To spport his conclusion ,he cited the example that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton within 18 mouths after the city of Dillon reduce its' corporate tax by 15 percent,and began to provide some walfare to relocation companies at the same time last year.There are several flaws that would weaken the argument.
标准模板！孙远的几个老式模板之一。换换词修改一下！不会让人感觉没有新意！而且觉得开头有点长
First,there is no information about the original corperrate tax in Dillton.It is possible that the tax in Dillton is so high that even it has been reduced by 15 percent ,it is still higher than that of Beauvile .If it is the case ,reducing tax is of no use for the economy to increase in Beauvile.
这段有点少。你可以加套话，虽然我不赞成套话，但为了堆字这是最好的方法。要不就加一些论证方法。例如类比论证。例如：中国GDP以10%速度增长，美国以5%速度增长。这并不能说明中国比美国经济更好！这样类比一下，字就多了！
Second , although offering relocation grands and favourable rate on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton would no doubt be a kind of stimulus , will it be the enscential alternative for a company to choose its' location? The answer is definitely “No!” As far as i'm concerned ,some other factors ,such as potential market ,material and worker source ,environment etc. are all playing more important roles in deciding where to set the factory.After all ,what a company really searches[这个没拼错，但觉得很别扭] for is mostly profits , only a little walfare and benefit could not shape the option of the location of a company ,and only have chance  be an auxiliary stimulation .
这段还不错！：）有交流感很好！
What’s more ,the arguer commits a fallcy of false analogy .Only when the condition in the two cities are similar enough can the successful experience in Dillton also work in Beauvile . It may be the transport convience ,cheap worker source and other factors that attracted the two manufacturing campanies to set in Dillton . However ,the auther said nothing about this kind of similarity,thus ,I can’t accept his prediction that the measures taken by Dillton government will also bring the benefit mentioned in the argument.
这样写也行！不过注意拼写错误啊！
All in all ,the arguer can”t convince me of any thing without more additional evidence . In my personnal view, in order to have the economy growth , the government of Beauvile should make a datial study of the advantages and disadvantages in Beauvile ,creating the strategy fitting best for itself.
恩！我觉得前面加几句安慰A的作者的话会更好！你拼写错误多。可能是时间太紧的原因吧！我也常犯！不过贴上来之前建议先略改一下！而且标点问题严重！先标点再空格！

finalleUID: 2812504

TOPIC: ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.
"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."
WORDS: 480          TIME: 01:24:41          DATE: 2010/7/31 19:24:59
In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here. To support this claim, the arguer cites a government report points out that last year the city of Dliition reduced its corporate tax rate at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities. Moreover, within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dliiton. Although well-presented this argument is, it's not well-reasoned enough from my perspective.
Firstly, based on a false analoogy, the arguer simply draws a conclusion that the circumstances in both the city of Dillton and Beauville are simliar. It is entirely possible that Dillton and Beauville differs a lot from several aspects, such as different geographical position, different level of economic development, and different citizens situation. Additionally,the report didn't provide the information about the exactly amount of the corporate tax rate in two cities. Due to this, the arguer fails to establish us that the corporate of Dillton was higher than Beauville's after Dillton reduced by 15 percent? In short, without accounting for important possible differences betweent Dillton and Beauville, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method with help Beauville succeed.
Secondly, the arguer rests on the assumption that situation in the city of Dillton typify the nationwide one. Nevertheless, it is not always necessarily the case. Perhaps, the factors about the potential market, the raw material, and the cheap worker of Dillton attracted the two manufacturing companies to relocate there instead of tax incentives and other inducements. Thus, if Beauville lacks these factors, it is unlikely to encourage private companies move here.
Thirdly, another problem with this argument is that the statistical evidence upon which is too vogue to be informative. We are told nothing about the information about a total of 300 employees. Maybe they had boring jobs before and when the two companies moved to Dillton, they just hopped from job to job. However, this didn't contribute to reduce unemployment. Only have the comparsion about the unemployment rate in Dillton can we know.
Finally, the arguer fails to convince the two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton in last year were private companies. So the factors may not have the attractions. In addition, private companies have troblue in relocate from one place to another. Morever, no comparison of other ways, how can the arguer claims that it is the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economiic development.
In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better justify it, the arguer has to provide evidence that the way about provide tax incentives and other financial inducements in Dillton has stimulated ecnomic development and henced reduce unenmployment and that the conclusion from analysts can be applied to Beauville's economy.

finalleUID: 2812504

This argument is well-presented, but includes some aspects that are questionable. By analyzing the success of the city of Dillton (D), the argument for that our Beauville (B) should follow D's policy seems logical.

However, the author fails to rule out the possible differeces between D and B. For instance, their location, population, market and so forth are all these factors need to be concerned. Every company wants我倾向于like，即喜欢愿意，用want感觉想要 to relocate in a city with a great market for their products or near places produce their raw materials. Therefore, where the city locate are单数 very important to attract companies. What's more, whether the company will empoly citizens in your city is determined by citizens加’ abilities. No company employ workers without ablities拼写错误  only thinking about their needs of labors和前面工人重复. So the ablities拼写错误并重复多次 and knowledge of citizens are also need to be compared.
用很多话来表示员工能力有点太长，多联系题目

Another important thing to consider is the feasibility of this policy in Beauville and whether重复使用 having any other methods better than this. Without evalutation of the feasibility of this policy I can hardly agree with authors‘ conclusion. Whether B have enough place to offer to new companies and whether we have already under financial problems and have not ablities to provide low tax rates are facts important in author's logical chain.整个主谓宾不清晰有问题 If one of these facts above happerned in B, we should reevalute the feasibility of this suggestion. In additon, any other methods better than this haven't been discussed in this argument. And it's incredible that the author hastily conclude that his suggestion is the fastest way. If comparing with other policy, it may contribute to author's argument.

Last but not least, the policy in last year is efficient, but in this year whether it still has efficiency is open to doubt. Over time, the conditions of the cities are changing. For instance重复, the conditions of economy or employment will determine whether new company can move to our city. And the statements of other cities are as the same importance as economy condition. If most of our nearly cities adopt this policy, almost no superiority we own to other cities. What's worse, no superiority means companies may not replace to B and we lose local companies' favor. Part of local companies could replaced to other cities. If it happens, we get nothing but lose what we have had. Hence, before making such a decision, we should consider lots of conditions like what have been mentioned above.

In sum, the author's evidence accomplishes little to supporting his/her argument for suggesting B to adopt this policy tostimulate economic and reduce unemployment. To further bolster the argument the author must provide better evidence, perhaps the comparison between D and B in many fields. Or perhaps analysis about some other policies for the same destination. If providing the situation about the companies still willing to relocate in an area with low rates, this argument will not sway the author's suggestion.

单复数时态自己注意，重复不要太多，用太多人称you we 还是the比较好 多联系题目


============================================================================================二改  楼下
In this argument, the author asserts that Beauville should provide tax incentives and other financial inducements to encourage companies because Dillton had been去掉 succeed in this way. To espouse these conclusions, the author assumes that last year Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent and it began offering beneficial to the company which would relocate to Dillton. Furthermore, author concludes that two companies moved to Dillton which employ 300 people as the evidence. From my perspective, none of these assertions or assumption is well supported by cogent premises and reasonable demonstration.

Fundamentally, the main mistake太绝对 is that author false analogy错误类比是名词 between Dillton and Beauvile. First, author just mentions the series of policies in the Dillton but not supports any reasons about why Dillton offering so many policies. Probably, before last year Dillton had a very bad environment of investment, while Beauvile had a good one. Secondly前后不一致, there is none of去掉 evidence about two cities have a common condition. Every people in Beauville maybe had a good job and Beauville cannot support so many employees for new companies.

Even assuming the series of policies is available, it is still has去掉前面的 another fallacy that weakens in this argument. Common sense said that, only two companies moved to Dillton within 18 months is not a very attractive case. On the contrary, it probably means the policy in Dillton has some problem. Actually, Beauville has ability to attracting more than two companies without any policy. This is a possibility can make the author's assumption that the policy could improving the invest environment groundless.

In a nutshell, I have analyzed so many flaws in the argument. In my opinion, the argument should reason more convincingly. If I were the author I would account the evidence such as what the condition in Beauville make the argument more cogent while the reason why companies will not invest on Beauville also needs to be supported

整体时态把握不好 希望固定好 句子有表达错误 加油

austen06UID: 2841836

TOPIC: ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.

"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."
WORDS: 404          TIME: 00:40:59          DATE: 2010-7-30 15:01:49

In this newspaper, the author of the argument conclude that in order to stimulate economic development and reduce unemplyment, Beauville should provide tax incentives and various financial inducements as well as encouage private companies to relocate here. To support this argument, the author cites a government report showing the city of Dillton has adopted a series of economical policies such as tax cut and offering relocation grants and has achieved quite satisfying results: two manufacturing copaines moved to Dillton and employed some 3000 people. However, this argument suffers from several critical logical flaws.

To begin with, the author of the argument unfairly assumes that those economic policies adopted by the Dillton government is attributable to the relocation of the two manufacturing companies.Perhaps the two companies are in need of many workers, and the average salary of the workers in Dillton is quite low, therefore the two companies moved in to save the costs. Moreover, since Dillton only introduced the economic policies last year while the two companies moved in Dillton within 18 months. It is entirely possible that the relocation of the two companies happened before Dillton launched its economic policies. If so, the argument would be severely underminded.

Secondly, the author provides no evidence that the relocation of the two manufacturing companies indeed stimulate the economic development. Lacking such evidences, it is also possible that the economic development in Dillton has been checked despite the increasing employment.

Thirdly, the author fails to consider the difference between Dillton and Beauville that might help to bring about a different result for Beauville if Beauville adopt those economic proposals. Perhaps offering the relocation grants will be a huge burden for Beauville which, on the contrary, serves to be detrimental to economic development.

Finally, even if those economic policies works in Beauville, the argument also based on this assumption that they are necessary. Yet this might not be the case. The Beauville government would have many other better choices, for example encouraging local people to start their own bussiness.

In sum, the argument is not convincing. To bloster the argument, the author must show that it is the economic proposals that lead to the relocation of the two manufacturing companies in Dillton, and the economic condition in Dillton is improving. In addition, the author must provide evidence that Dillton and Beauville's economic situation is similar thus the same economic proposal would achieve similar result in both places.
===============================================================================================================
In this newspaper, the author of the argument conclude that in order to stimulate economic development and reduce unemployment, Beauville should provide tax incentives and various financial inducements as well as encourage private companies to relocate here. To support this argument, the author cites a government report showing the city of Dillton has adopted a series of economic policies such as tax cut and offering relocation grants and has achieved quite satisfying results: two manufacturing complains moved to Dillton and employed some 300 people. However, this argument suffers from several critical logical flaws.

To begin with, the author of the argument unfairly assumes that those economic policies adopted by the Dillton government are attributable to the relocation of the two manufacturing companies. Perhaps the two companies are in need of many workers, and the average salary of the workers in Dillton is quite low, therefore the two companies moved in to save the costs. Moreover, since Dillton only introduced the economic policies last year while the two companies moved in Dillton within 18 months. It is entirely possible that the relocation of the two companies happened before Dillton launched its economic policies. If so, the argument would be severely undermined.

Secondly, the author provides no evidence that the relocation of the two manufacturing companies indeed stimulate the economic development. It is entirely possible that the two compaines consume much resources and pollute the environment significantly. Thus, the further economic development could not be reached in Dillton. Lacking such evidences, it is also possible that the economic development in Dillton has been checked despite the increasing employment.

Thirdly, the author fails to consider the difference between Dillton and Beauville that might help to bring about a different result for Beauville if Beauville adopt those economic proposals. It is entirely possible the Dillton government finance is quite healthy and it could well afford offering the new coming companies economic benefits; whereas offering the relocation grants will be a huge burden for Beauville which, on the contrary, serves to be detrimental to economic development.

Finally, even if those economic policies work in Beauville, the argument also depends on this assumption that they are necessary. Yet this might not be the case. The Beauville government probably would have many other better choices, for example encouraging local people to start their own business or just increas government spendings. Without considering other choices of the Beauville government, the government cannot conclude the Beauville government should take those proposals.

In sum, the argument is not convincing. To bolster the argument, the author must show that it is the economic proposals that lead to the relocation of the two manufacturing companies in Dillton, and the economic condition in Dillton is improving. In addition, the author must provide evidence that Dillton and Beauville's economic situation is similar thus the same economic proposal would achieve similar result in both places.

austen06UID: 2841836

题目：ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.

"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."


In this argument, the author asserts that Beauville should provide tax incentives and other financial inducements to encourage companies because Dillton had been succeed (had succeed)in this way. To espouse these conclusions, the author assumes that last year Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent and it began offering beneficial (benefits)to the company which would relocate to Dillton. Furthermore, author concludes（cites） that two companies moved to Dillton which employ 300 people as the evidence(累赘）. From my perspective, none of these assertions or assumption is well supported by cogent premises and reasonable demonstration.

Fundamentally, the main mistake is that author false analogy between Dillton and Beauvile（语法错误）. First, author just mentions the series of policies in the Dillton but not supports any reasons about why Dillton offering so many policies. Probably, before last year Dillton had a very bad environment of investment, while Beauvile had a good one. （应该不是攻击点）Secondly, there is none of （no）evidence about two cities have a common condition. Every people in Beauville maybe had a good job and Beauville cannot support so many employees for new companies.

Even assuming the series of policies is available, it is still has another fallacy that weakens in this argument. Common sense said that, only two companies moved to Dillton within 18 months is not a very attractive case. （个人觉得这不是一个好的攻击，2就是2，主要问题不在于这个数量）On the contrary, it probably means the policy in Dillton has some problem. Actually, Beauville has ability to attracting more than two companies without any policy. This is possibility can make the author's assumption that the policy could improving the invest environment groundless.

In a nutshell, I have analyzed so many flaws in the argument. In my opinion, the argument should reason more convincingly. If I were the author I would account the evidence such as what the condition in Beauville make the argument more cogent while the reason why companies will not invest on Beauville also


============================================================================================

TOPIC: ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.

"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."
WORDS: 512          TIME: 00:39:49          DATE: 2010-7-30 15:10:37

The notion that Beauville should provide tax incentives and other financial inducements to attract private companies seems to be sound and convincing. After all, In Dillton, within 18 months after it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton. However, close scrutiny reveals that none of these evidence lend credible support to stimulate economic development and reduce unemployment in Beauville.

First of all, the mid-conclusion(sub conclusion是不是更好？） that the revolution (这个词太大了吧，而且指代不明）leads to the quicker development and the decline of unemployment in Dillton is doubtable. As the author does not provide any information about the economic environment in Dillton, we can not know how many manufacturing companies move into Dillton in average 18 months before the revolution. Chances are that far more than 2 manufacturing companies move into Dillton and the revolution actually decreased the rate. And even if the number of manufacturing companies moved into Dillton increased, what about other companies? Maybe this revolution cased many other companies except manufacturing companies to leave Dillton. Furthermore, we have no ideas about the size of Dillton, if it is a big cite like New York, these two companies can do little about the economic development and the rate of unemployment. Not mentioned（没看明白，这个前后两句的关系） that the revolution and movement of the manufacturing company can show little more than they happened sequently (sequentially). The causal relationship between the revolution and the movement of manufacturing company does not be proved. May be they just happened at same time by chance. Without ruling out all the possibilities I mentioned above, the author cannot get the conclusion that Dillton is benefit (has benefited) from such revolution.

Granted Dillton stimulate the economic development and reduce unemployment, which is an unwarranted assumption of course, (这个有点累赘）the author cannot deduce the conclusion that it will be the same in Beauville either. Such groundless assumption is based on the premise（假设建立在假设之上？） that Beauville and Dillton are almost the same. However, there is no convincing evidence or even logical discursion to support such opinion. If Beauville is a big city that already have enough manufacturing factories while Dillton is developing city in need of manufacturing companies; or if Beeville’s corporate tax is far less than that in Dillton; or if Beauville is not convenient in geography aspect for the transportation of manufacturing companies, all these will cause fundamental difference between Beauville and Dillton and lead to significant different result after the same revolution. So without enough information and data about the size, culture, geography（geographic） environment, economic laws and something like that in Beauville and Dillton, the premise is not ensured and will undermine the author's conclusion.

Besides, the author gets the conclusion that it is the fastest way without any comparison with any other way and overlooks all the disadvantages of his recommendations, which will mislead the readers. How can we know whether it is the fastest based on such limited and vague data? Even if it is the fastest way, if it will cause other problem, like environment pollution, more serious than simulating economic development, such recommendation should not be accepted.

To sum up, this recommendation may benefit Beeville’s economical grow and reduce the rate of unemployed（unemployment）. However, before claim such recommendation（语法）, persuasive, practical and professional research and survey should be taken，such as the reason why those 2 companies moved into Dillton, the same and difference between Dillton and Beauville, or other possible ways to stimulate economic development and reduce unemployment in Beauville.


*看的有些吃力，语言不太明晰，很复杂。
*有些语法和用此不妥的问题
*攻击点基本没问题