还有3天就考了，恳求大家提提意见，issue56+ag237只字片语就可以了

minixuUID: 2451047

觉得语言很有限，老是用重复的词，思路也局限，打不开，请大家拍拍砖吧，感激不尽！！！


TOPIC: ISSUE56 - "Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."
WORDS: 442
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-8-29 2:31:19

We live in a society that provides us many convenience to enjoy and also many problems to solve. Considering that there are two mainly kinds of problems we need to face--today's problems and tomorrow's problems. Which one should be solved first by our governments? In my opinion, I think governments should focus on both the two kinds of problems, otherwise they will cause problems and even disasters to the society.

In the first place, the society as a whole can feel how urgent the problems they face today. For example, the decline of economy cause many people lose their jobs. This lead to the consequence that they can not afford their children to go to school and they can not buy the foods they enjoy most and clothes they want most. People become upset and they may be angry at the government. For another example, if earthquake suddenly takes place in certain area, governments should take immediately action to save people's lives and properties. So these immediate problems of today should be solved by the governments when it happens.

In the second place, we can not deny the importance of tomorrow's problems. Pollution, a problem we have already noticed today is a problem that will harm our offspring if we do not take action to solve it today. The efforts and resources that needed to solve the pollution today may be enormous. However, if it is not solved immediately, the efforts and money needed to solve it tomorrow will double and it is also possible that we may feel overwhelmed by pollution as a result of no one can solve it anymore. So in order to avoid situation like this come to true, we need to find out the solutions of this problem the quicker the better.

Lastly, governments should not solve today's problem at the expenses of causing tomorrow’s problem. As mentioned above, the decline of economy need to be solved by certain appropriate methods immediately. But some poor country solve the poverty problem by selling their limited energy, such as oil, to earn money from other rich countries. Although they do profit a lot from the trade, they are doomed to face the problems that will come tomorrow. If they use up the energy, the environment in their country will also be destroyed. Then they need to solve both their poverty and environment problems.

In sum, I admit that today's problem should be solved today. At the same time, governments should also be conscious that tomorrow's problem should be taken into consideration when solving today's problem. Finding a balanced method between the two problems is the key to ensure the development of our society.






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: 376
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-29 2:31:19

The author's conclusion that Beauvile should reduce tax and imitate other measures took by city of Dillton in order to attract more private companies is ungrounded. He overlooks other possibility and reasons that contribute to the success of Dillton.

Firstly, there's no evidence provided that tax rate in Beauville is higher than in Dillton. Although Dillton reduce its tax rate by 15 percent, it is also possible that tax in Dillton is still much higher than in Beauville. So the assumption that Dillton attract company to relocate in their city for the reason that they offer lower tax is not well grounded.

Secondly, the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton within 18 months can not indicate that the economy in Dillton developed quicker than before. The author did not mention that how many companies move out the city . Is there more company move out the Dilllton? The author also did not inform us whether these two manufacturing companies develop well in Dillton. Are they in good situation that earn enough profit to afford those 300 employer? Are they going to stay in Dillton for the coming year even if they find a more suitable city for their companies' development in the future? Since no evidence prove that the two companies bring prosperity to the city and they are satisfied with their situation enough to stay in Dillton for a long time, the author's conclusion that Dillton benefit a lot from their policy is unconvincing.

Lastly, granted that Dillton's economy has been stimulated by their policy, no one can ensure that this will happen to Beauville. The situation of economy in Beauville may be entirely different with Dillton's. Maybe the biggest obstacle of developing economy in Beauville is that they lack some business law to regulate the market. It is also possible that the transportation in Beauville is not convenient enough to develop economy. Even the bad weather in Beauville can be a reason that some boss will not choose to locate their company there.

In sum, the author's conclusion is not grounded because he unfairly assumes the economy in Dillton was stimulated and he overlooks the difference between two different cities. He should take more elements into consideration before he made his conclusion.

minixuUID: 2451047

是不是都考完了啊？人好少啊

akatsukidudenUID: 2651581

The author's conclusion that Beauvile should reduce tax and imitate other measures took by city of Dillton in order to attract more private companies is ungrounded. The author(不要直接写出第三人称单词比较好吧。可能会有性别歧视的问题) overlooks other possibilities and reasons that may also contribute to the success of Dillton.

Firstly, there's no evidence provided that tax rate in Beauville is higher than in Dillton. Although Dillton reduce its tax rate by 15 percent, it is also possible that tax in Dillton is still much higher than in Beauville. The author cannot convince me on the basis of Dillton's experience that reducing tax rate would be effective in attaining Beauville's goal. (这一段前面讲的是城市之间税率不可比较，但结尾句却变成了低税率不是引来企业的直接原因。所以最后一句话应该改掉。 )

Secondly, the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton within 18 months can not indicate that the economy in Dillton developed quicker than before. The author did not mention that how many companies moved out the city . Are there more companies moving  out of the Dilllton? The author also did not inform us whether these two manufacturing companies develop well in Dillton. Are they in good situation in which they could earn enough money to afford those 300 employers? Are they going to stay in Dillton for the coming years even if they find a more suitable city for their companies' development in the future? Since no evidence proving that the two companies will bring prosperity to the city from now and on, the author's assumption that Dillton benefits a lot from their policy is unconvincing.(感觉每段话的模版都差不多。可以考虑稍微变换一下句式。不过不知道还来不来得及)

睡觉前看了一段。祝你考试成功！

minixuUID: 2451047

3# akatsukiduden

谢谢，快考了，好紧张啊，都写不出什么，好郁闷，憋死我了~~~