Argument112 =美丽G程小组=小组第1次作业 by Mion

MionUID: 2723529

题目：ARGUMENT112 - The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.

"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."
字数：——475
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this argument , the author recommends a plan should be adopted,which in order to reduce the flight delays of Frankin Airport ,the airport management wants to fill in 900 acres of the bay for building new runways to increase capacity.However,close scrutiny of this evidences reveals that it lends little support for the recommendation.

First of all,the author does not point out what resulted in the flight delays,the plan that the construction of new runways could reduce the flight delays is open to doubt.Perhaps delays caused by the low efficency of the airport administration.And it also perhaps the delays resulted in the poor weather condition.In addition,we can find no concrete evidence to substantiate the inevitable relationship between build the new runways and the flight delays.In short , since the author provides no evidence of the relationship between both above and the reason why the flight delayed .Then the author cannot convince me this recommendation is available.

Even if build the new runways is a accessible plan,however,the author provide no statistics that the restoration of the wetland could compensates the cost of destroying the bay. In claiming that the wetland restoration can bring more benefit than harm to the bay,the author needs to do more comprehensive research on both positive and negative effects of the proposal.It is entirely possible that the wetland which have previously been damaged cannot be restored and come into use again.Moreover,even if proposal that the restoration of the  wetland can be adopted,it may cannot solve the whole aftereffect caused by losing such lager acres bay.Maybe the wetland restoration just can alleviate the damage in a little extent.Under such scenario,adopting the author's proposal might be harm,rather than benefit.

Finally, the author ignores other solutions to reduce the flight delays and unfairly assumes that construct new runways is the only way to reduce the flight delays.  The author assumes that the proposed actions are both sufficient and necessary for reducing flight delays.Nevertheless,to solve the problem successfully, many other respects must be cosidered. Further more, many other available methods besides the airport's proposal could also be used to be adopted.Before the author make a careful and thorough comparison between the effectiveness of airport's proposal and other possible methods,the airport's proposal should not be hastily carried out. Hence,we can presume that maybe take other measures will be more effective.Without ruling out the possibility that other methods will be more effective,we will doubt the accuracy about the recommendation .

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuadable as it stands.To convince me that the recommendation should be adopted, the author must provide clear explanation of the reason caused flight delays,and evidence that the wetland restoration can compensate the aftereffect  caused by losing lager acres bay.Finally,to better evaluate the argument I would need to know if there are any other measures can be taken to reduce the flight delays effective.

猫斯基UID: 2607814

In this argument , the author recommends a plan should be adopted,which in order to reduce the flight delays of Frankin Airport ,the airport management wants to fill in 900 acres of the bay for building new runways to increase capacity.However,close scrutiny of this evidences reveals that it lends little support for the recommendation.

First of all,the author does not point out what resulted in the flight delays,the plan that the construction of new runways could reduce the flight delays is open to doubt.Perhaps delays caused by the low efficency of the airport administration.And it also perhaps the delays resulted in（resulted from) the poor weather condition.In addition,we can find no concrete evidence to substantiate the inevitable relationship between build(building) the new runways and the flight delays.In short , since the author provides no evidence of the relationship between both above and the reason why the flight delayed .Then the author cannot convince me this recommendation is available.

Even if build (building)the new runways is a (an )accessible plan,however,the author provide(provides) no statistics that the restoration of the wetland could compensates the cost of destroying the bay. In claiming that the wetland restoration can bring more benefit than harm to the bay,the author needs to do more comprehensive research on both positive and negative effects of the proposal.It is entirely possible that the wetland which have previously been damaged cannot be restored and come(comes) into use again.Moreover,even if proposal that(the proposal of the restoration of the wetland) the restoration of the  wetland can be adopted,it may cannot solve the whole aftereffect(这个单词是啥？） caused by losing such lager acres bay.Maybe the wetland restoration just can alleviate the damage in （to）a little extent.Under such scenario,adopting the author's proposal might be harm,rather than benefit.

Finally, the author ignores other solutions to reduce the flight delays and unfairly assumes that construct new runways is the only way to reduce the flight delays.  The author assumes that the proposed actions are both sufficient and necessary for reducing flight delays.Nevertheless,to solve the problem successfully, many other respects must be cosidered. Further more, many other available methods besides the airport's proposal could also be used to be adopted.Before the author make（makes） a careful and thorough comparison between the effectiveness of airport's proposal and other possible methods,the airport's proposal should not be hastily carried out. Hence,we can presume that maybe take（taking） other measures will be more effective.Without ruling out the possibility that other methods will be more effective,we will doubt the accuracy about the recommendation .

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuadable as it stands.To convince me that the recommendation should be adopted, the author must provide clear explanation of the reason caused flight delays,and evidence that the wetland restoration can compensate the aftereffect  caused by losing lager acres bay.Finally,to better evaluate the argument I would need to know if there are any other measures can be taken to reduce the flight delays effective.

猫斯基UID: 2607814

觉得绯姐姐句型比较多变，然后表达也比较老练，但是综合两篇不难看出其实你的语法错误比较集中，就是单复数，动名词以及一些句子造的太过随意，看能只看重中文意思的翻译而忽略了语法。
----拙见

MionUID: 2723529

被你看穿了~~语法就是我的痛脚~~
包括那篇issue里最后的那个records，我考究了好久，那个到底是动词还是名词复数？？？

MionUID: 2723529

这篇的ar局限在只找出了错误和攻击，缺乏条理，整理逻辑错误没有组织，换言之，没有结构安排。。
写的时候忘了“逻辑——逻辑”这条中心，到后面简直像是在玩推理…………败笔！
还有一点~~~ar结尾应是怎样的呢？？？总是模仿一些范文里在restate author的短缺，这真的是必要的吗？疑惑~！！！