0910[Try Best】第一小组 argument65 by cooljcq

cooljcqUID：2498528

Argument65.The following appeared in a memo from the president of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States.

"For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, （1）the five best-selling cheeses at our newest store were all domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a（2）recent survey by Cheeses of the World magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its subscribers.（3）Since our company can reduce expenses by limiting inventory, the best way to improve profits in all of our stores is to discontinue stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses."


The arguer states several seemingly grounded reasons to support his conclusion that domestic cheeses (DC) sells better than imported cheeses (IC). Without enough evidence, the arguer asserts that cutting off stock of varieties of imported cheeses can reduce cost while increasing profits. As regards the illogical and unreasoned foundation that the arguer claims, detailed and deep analysis will be shown as follows.
First of all, the arguer takes a mistake that based on special and individual case, he gives an assumption that any other stores of their chain are the similar situation. Well selling in the newest store is not amount to other stores in the same district or different districts also sell well. No conspicuous or vague information guarantees his assumption. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence to show other people in distinct area prefer the same kind of cheeses named domestic cheddar cheeses. It is well known that people in different areas will favor different flavor of cheeses.

In the second place, the survey investigated by the Cheeses of the World magazine (CWM) provides no sufficient information for us to judge whether the result of it is according to fact. On the basis of the content the arguer gives, it is hard to get the conclusion that other people also prefer to eat the DC. The origin of the survey statistic, the number of interviewees as well as the investigating areas is not involved in the arguer’s statement. Actually, the scope of survey sample the CWM did is relative small. It is just limited in the range of their subscribers. Besides, it is no persuasive data to convince us that people’s flavor in the district or districts where the CWM investigated is identical or similar to people’s of different districts. The arguer also illogically mixes the concept between preference and actual purchase. He is wishfully thinking that the preference of interviewees is equal to real purchase, regardless of negative side. Only the real purchase of DC, can the survey data give some support to the arguer’s assertion in some cases.
Last but not least, although the expenditure can be declined through limiting inventory, there is ungrounded to imprudently make a decision to cut off the stock of IC. No evidence reveals that the amount of selling IC is less than that of selling DC. In addition, whether the selling of IC makes no or less profits than that earn from selling DC is uncertain. While no indication shows that cutting off storage of IC is right or not, not to mention the predictable profits after cutting off it. Another, it is unsuitable for the arguer to infer the disputable consequence that all their stores can make better profits under the condition of cutting off the stock of IC. The reason why is that it is controversy to do the same thing in all their stores can get the identical result without considering concrete circumstances. Therefore, we are hardly to agree with the arguer’s suggestion.
In final analysis, the arguer should provide us with plentiful and persuasive testimony to make his argument be reasonable. Without enough evidence and data, the arguer rashly gets his conclusion that turning their attention on DC from IC. It sometimes misguides the readers, while the unpredictable result may occur-the company lost their market and profits then lost itself.

nlhustUID：2404239

因为我的issue144还没写好，现在改你的issue估计没办法提出什么很好的思路结构上的建议，所以就还是先改你的argument了，别介意啊:)

Basedon the ungrounded reasons and inference, the arguer got the falseconclusion that the stores should stop stocking their varieties ofimported cheeses and pay their major attention on（pay attention to 固定搭配） domestic cheeses. Asregard the unwarranted foundation, the detailed interpretation will bestated as followings.（这句话到底是想说明什么？detailed interpretation是指什么？前文什么都没提示这里就突然冒出来，都不知道你是说的对什么的解释。。）

开头一段里除了说出了false conclusion是什么外就没说别的东西了。ungrounded reasons是什么？ inference又是什么？这样的开头写出来感觉意义不大，建议看一下https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=920961&highlight


Firstof all, there is nothing persuasive data to provide for us to believethat domestic cheeses (DC) sell well.(语法问题，nothing persuasive 或not persuasive data 都行，就是不能一起说，另外仔细体会一下带to 的不定式怎么用。可以改成nothing persuasive is provided for us so that we cannot believe that... 不要把一个句子一个句子的套着说来说去，觉得表意有可能不清楚或没把握的时候就分开说吧) The arguer mistook an individualtypical case to enlarge to all over the chain stores.（mistake的用法自己去查下吧，我就不贴过来了。另外后面那半句话说的也有问题，具体怎么改我也说不准，你问一下heliapple吧。） The well sold DCat the newest store could not guarantee the good selling in their otherstores of the chain. Besides, it is well grounded to believe that thenewest store only sold five types of DC, consequently, can fivebest-selling cheeses be sold.（最后这个理由还是别说了吧，太牵强，一点也不well grounded。首先，你那个only sold five types of DC到底是想说只有5中dc卖其他的都是imported cheeses呢还是想说那个店里面卖的品种一共就只有5种？如果是前者的话，仅有的5中dc都比其他的imported cheeses卖的好，那么这恰好证明了domestic cheeses受欢迎；如果是后者，那么你认为一个全国连锁的奶酪店有可能只卖5种奶酪吗？那样的话早就开不下去了吧）

再说一遍，consequently是副词，它可以做连词用吗？如果不能的话为什么前后两句不分开，不打句号？
感觉如果一定要向你段里这么说的话应该这样：先是那个TS，然后说店里前五名都是DC不带表DC卖的好，再说就算DC卖的好，作者也是犯了一个以偏概全的错误，这样让步递进的批驳感觉更有力一点。



In the second place, the recent survey investigated by Cheeses of the World magazine （CWM）can’t convince us the increasing quantity （表达不确切，不是increasing quantity而因该是增长的需求量）of DC. At the beginning,（去掉） thesurvey didn’t supply enough statistics to testify its conclusion,（不是the survey didn't supply 而应该是the author didnt supply enough statistics of the survey。） suchas the number and extension of interviewees. From the result that CWMgave, the inquisition was run in their customers.（这句话没看明白，因此也不明白这个为什么就会导致调查结果不可靠。） Therefore, the result of investigation is not faithful to us.

这一段是在找survey的错误，但是我觉得有些地方并不能直接说是survey本身的缺陷，信息的缺失最多是作者未提供。另外就算说是survey本身设计有问题的话，也应该明确的提出令人信服的观点，理由很重要，即是是用很简单的词汇和句子也一定要把它表述清晰，这比你用一句不明不白的长句复合句高级词汇的表达要好很多。


Furthermore, whether the increasing preference for DC can alter to realcustomers of DC is uncertain.(preference 和 customer 并不是同类名词吧，也非对等关系吧，怎么转换呢？) Maybe all of them just take it as chatmaterial after their meal and reluctant to buy them.（我很想知道你是通过什么样的逻辑推理得出chat material这一它因的？没看出来和原文中的文字有什么联系） Finally, theobjectivity of investigation done by CWM is obscure. No one knows that（whether） the method it utilized and the investigator it sent had impacted on theinvestigation or not. If the investigators were inclined to the resultsthey wanted during interviewing, the survey report is away（away是副词，be动词可以加副词吗？） from itsobjective foundation.

这一段有点乱，上一段说到了数据不够的问题，这属于survey本身的设计缺陷；这一段显示说结果不能说明问题，然后又说道了survey的本身缺陷，干嘛不把后面这个客观性问题放到上一段去，然后再说就算这个survey是符合正常的要求的，它的结果也不一定能说明什么问题呢？另外，在有足够批驳点的情况下，的确不建议就survey本身的客观公平性误导性等进行批驳，毕竟这个也算是毫无根据的凭空猜测，尤其是在这篇文章中。


Lastbut not least, it is unconvinced that cutting off the stocking ofimported cheeses and concentrating largely on DC can gain more profits.There is no plentiful data to prove that the selling of importedcheeses makes no or less profits compared with the selling of DC. It ispossible to infer that the imported cheeses earn more returns than DC（than 前后接的结构和成分应相同） ,for the high price and excellent quality of it. Many people, especiallythe youth prefer the imported cheeses to the DC for the purpose ofchasing the fad and tide. The poor quality and unsavory flavor, eventhe inferior package would make the customers keep away from them.(不明白，这句里的them是指什么？imported cheeses？矛盾，但是又看不出来它有任何指代domestic cheeses的迹象)Therefore, it is cursory for the arguer to make up his decision withoutconsidering a large amount of factors that will influence the sellingof cheeses.

说卖imported cheeses说不定能够有更大的利润，这个点是对的。但是里面的理由举得有点混乱。也有可能是我脑袋不清醒看不太明白了吧。


Allin all, the conclusion that the arguer got can’t （be） bolstered by hisevidences. Unless the arguer provides more persuasive and detailed datato keep his argument（keep his argument怎么样？keep单独用的话能够表达你想表达的意思吗？）, the conclusion is not existent.（有这种说法吗？）

结尾也是，什么都没说，基本上就是简要重复了开头的话。这样写我不知道到底该说成是简洁还是空洞。反正感觉这样的结尾看不看都无所谓的，无非是昭告说文章写完了而已。


总的来说，段与段之间的条理还是比较清晰，错误也都找出来了。建议就是找本语法书好好看看，然后多列argument的提纲，多看别人的提纲，写的时候尽量多考虑一下所列举的它因的是否具有说服力，是否能证明自己的观点，是否表达清楚了。

cooljcqUID：2498528

谢谢nuhust如此细致的改作文，收益非浅呢，比写上几十篇文章都有用啊！

cooljcqUID：2498528

说明，本帖子我已经修改过

heliappleUID：2621347

1# cooljcq
The arguer states several seemingly grounded reasons to support his conclusion that domestic cheeses (DC) sells better than imported cheeses (IC). Without enough evidence, the arguer asserts that cutting off stock of varieties of imported cheeses can reduce cost while increasing profits. As regards the illogical and unreasoned foundation that the arguer claims, detailed and deep analysis will be shown as follows.
这个开头写的不错
First of all, the arguer takes a mistake that based on special and individual case,(makes a mistake that based on a special case) make a mistake 是固定搭配。he gives an assumption that any other stores of their chain are the (in the) similar situation. Well selling in the newest store is not amount to other stores in the same district or different districts also sell well.(Well selling in the newest store does not amount to welling selling in the other stores.)应该是各个商店的销售量之比。 No conspicuous or vague information guarantees his assumption. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence to show other people in distinct area prefer the same kind of cheeses named domestic cheddar cheeses.(name 应该是指命名为的意思吧，这句话的意思让人觉得你要表达的好像是一种名为domestic cheddar cheeses. ) It is well known that people in different areas will favor different flavor of cheeses.

In the second place, the survey investigated by the Cheeses of the World magazine (CWM) provides no sufficient information for us to judge whether the result of it is according to fact. On the basis of the content the arguer gives, it is hard to get the conclusion that other people also prefer to eat the DC. The origin of the survey statistic, the number of interviewees as well as the investigating areas is not involved in the arguer’s statement. Actually, the scope of survey sample the CWM did is relative small. It is just limited in the range of their subscribers. Besides, it is (there is )no persuasive data to convince us that people’s flavor in the district or districts where the CWM investigated is identical or similar to people’s of different districts. The arguer also illogically mixes the concept between preference and actual purchase. He is wishfully thinking that the preference of interviewees is equal to real purchase, regardless of negative side. Only the real purchase of DC, can the survey data give some support to the arguer’s assertion in some cases.

Last but not least, although the expenditure can be declined through limiting inventory, there is (it is ) ungrounded to imprudently make a decision to cut off the stock of IC. No evidence reveals that the amount of selling IC is less than that of selling( 去掉selling) DC. In addition, whether the selling of IC makes no or less profits than that earn from selling DC is uncertain. While no indication shows that cutting off storage of IC is right or not,(怎么判断减少库存是对还是错呢？) not to mention the predictable profits after cutting off it. Another, it is unsuitable for the arguer to infer the disputable consequence that all their stores can make better profits under the condition of cutting off the stock of IC. The reason why is that it is controversy to do the same thing in all their stores can get the identical result without considering concrete circumstances. Therefore, we are hardly to agree with the arguer’s suggestion.

In final analysis, the arguer should provide us with plentiful and persuasive testimony to make his argument be reasonable. Without enough evidence and data, the arguer rashly gets his conclusion that turning their attention on DC from IC. It sometimes misguides the readers, while the unpredictable result may occur-the company lost their market and profits then lost itself.
改过的文章看起来舒服多了，ｎｌｅｈｕｓｔ提得建议真的很有价值，我也没有多余的意见了，继续努力吧