@@茶叶蛋炒饭@@ 第十四次作业 argument164 请组员跟帖

yeshen2010UID: 2744103

Argument164

In this argument, the author states that Claitown University should commit a famous architecture known for experimental and futuristic buildings to construct a new housing for students. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, but with a clear examination of the author’s reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.

First of all, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the solution is the best way to solve the problem. As we known, many universities ask for financial aids from government to build housings. If government can fund the program, then Claitown University can provide affordable dormitory to every student.

Secondly, even if the solution that the author says is the best, there is no enough information to suggest that tourists would like to pay money visiting the new building. Maybe tourists are willing to pay for some of the architect’s buildings because they like the style of those buildings. The new building may be in different style with others which are constructed by the architect. If tourists do not like the new building, then the income from the fees cannot charged to visitors would not cover the cost. If visitors like the new building, due to the cost is too high, the university may not get income exceed cost as soon as possible.

Thirdly, a novel building is not the reason to attract students and donations from alumni. Students pay more attention on research ability, professors, financial aids when they choose an university. Whether an alumni would donate to one’s mother school depends on how the school treats the student when he or she was in the university, and also on how much money the alumni earns, and etc.

Fourthly, there is no evidence to indicate that the building will be much larger than current need for student housing, and the university needs more office space. In order to control cost, the university should construct the building in proper scale.

In conclusion, the author fails to substantiate his claim clearly. Because the evidence cited in the analysis is too weak to lend strong support to what the arguer suggests. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should convince us with more specific information.

改 link的A164


The adviser suggests that Claitown University should commission a famous architect who could design experimental and futuristic buildings. For supporting his view, he gives three reasons. Firstly, the university could earn much money from tourist. Secondly, it will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. Finally, the building will large enough. However, the adviser's reasons are ill-conceived.

  First of all, the adviser assumes those tourists will visits the university because of these futuristic buildings. Yet most sightseeing place does not merely have one kind of Scenic Spots which are artificial and created by modern people.  Take the Paris for an example, Paris has Louvre Museum and Eiffel Tower, but it does not only the two buildings. Tourists also can taste the French Food which is also very famous. Thus the mistake adviser have made is that he believe that a place should only have one outstanding events such as building, there will be lots to tourists to visits.
没有找到你的攻击点。你应该指出文章的假设是错误的，这里只说文章假设什么什么。记住，你是要去攻击（ETS的要求也是这么说的，criticize），而不是论述。

  Secondly, the adviser also believes that students and donations from alumni will be appealed to because these futuristic buildings. Considering the famous university of America, there is few university which attract students merely based on buildings in it. Obviously, buildings cannot decide the level of a university. Yale is famous is because there are lots presidents are graduated from it, MIT is famous is because of the scientists graduated from it, and so forth. The adviser deduced this conclusion illogically, which will not come true. Hence, we cannot expect that we can get more donations and students depended on these buildings.
犯了上面同样的问题。感觉有点像写ISSUE。

  Finally, the adviser mentioned that the university will have enough buildings after we have these buildings. In one hand, the adviser did not give any information of the type of futuristic buildings he mentioned. Furthermore, if the architect emphasizes importance on buildings’ shape, it may waste some space of buildings. Thus there are no evidence prove that the university can have enough buildings. In other hand, if the university constructs much larger buildings than our need, it will waste much money. But, according to adviser, the university do not have sufficient funding, thus it is not wisely to build such many large buildings.


  To sum up, the adviser wants to support that the university should build a futuristic building, but all the reasons he give is insufficient. Thus we should collect more information about buildings, and then we can make decision to set up what kind of building.

小结：建议看看范文，及ETS对ARGU的要求。

imlifewillingUID: 2706999

by 懒蚂蚁
16:13
The arguments suggests that the best solution to the problem of providing enough affordable houses for its students and funding the building of such housing is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic building. It is established upon the assumption that visitors would like to pay for visiting this new building and the charges would soon cover the cost. It also expects a outcomes of building this new building such as attracting more students and more donations form alumni. However, all these assumption are incredible.

In the first place, it might be proper to build a new building to afford the students's needs. Nevertheless, whether should we commission a famous architect or not need to be considered deeply. Firstly, the assumption that tourists would pay for visiting this new building lacks justification. Perhaps there have been already some of the archetect's works in this city, visitors have no occasion to visit this new building in the university. Or the archetect's works is famous for their outlook and there is no need for tourists to pay for appreciate the building.
Secondly, even the visitors want to visit the new building,there is also no survey about how to charge the visitors is proper. If we charge more than the visitors' expectation, there would be less tourists and it may cost a long time to cover the building costs. On the contrary, if we charge less, it might be also a long time before we can cover the costs. Thirdly, even though the argument could provide a reasonable criterion for charging, there is no proof that the students would support this policy. Maybe the visiting of tourists would bring a lot negative effects to the students' studying so that students would oppose the policy of allowing the tourists to visit the new building. So it is not convincing that we should commission the famous architect.

In the second place, the proponent of this recommendation alleges that the university will attract more students and donations from alumni. The is no proof to substantiate this point. Let's first consider the first part of this expectation. The proponent ignores other crucial elements, such as the reputation of the university, the teaching quality of the university, and the facilities of it and so forth, which play much more important roles than this new building in attracting students. When it comes to attracting donations from alumni, this new building maybe play an opposite role for the reason that the alumni perhaps think the university no longer needs donations since it can afford to build up such a futuristic buildings. So the proponent should provide more information that this new building does have positive effects in this respect.

In the last place, the proponent assumes that part of the building can be used as office space, which is also doubtable. Firstly, there is no evidence srpporting that this new building can afford the needs of the students. Perhaps the students' needs is hard to be contented only with this new building, let alone being used as office space. Secondly, even though there are some remainder rooms , perhaps they are not suitable to be used as office space since students activities maybe influence the teachers work or the appearance of teachers may affects the students' freedom. In short, the method of the building's use is not appropriate.

To sum up, though building a new building for affording the needs of students is right, the recommendation of commissioning a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings is not well justified. Therefor more surveys are needed to persuade the university to accept this proposal.
16:57

改yeshen

In this argument, the author states that Claitown University should commit a famous architecture known for experimental and futuristic buildings to construct a new housing for students. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, but with a clear examination of the author’s reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.
开头不错。
First of all, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the solution is the best way to solve the problem. As we known, many universities ask for financial aids from government to build housings. If government can fund the program, then Claitown University can provide affordable dormitory to every student.
这段表明不一定是最好的方法，这个我没有想到，学习了。
Secondly, even if the solution that the author says is the best, there is no enough information to suggest that tourists would like to pay money visiting the new building（这句有点问题了，都是best了，说明问题都可以解决，所以最好留点后路）. Maybe tourists are willing to pay for some of the architect’s buildings because they like the style of those buildings（没明白）. The new building may be in different style with others which are constructed by the architect. If tourists do not like the new building, then the income from the fees cannot charged to visitors would not cover the cost（没明白）. If visitors like the new building, due to the cost is too high（the high cost）, the university may not get income exceed cost as soon as possible.
从游客的角度来说，但是有几句我感觉写的不是很清楚。
Thirdly, a novel building is not the（main） reason to attract students and donations from alumni. Students pay more attention on research ability, professors, financial aids when they choose an university. Whether an alumni would donate to one’s mother school depends on how the school treats the student when he or she was in the university, and also on how much money the alumni earns, and etc.
生源和捐助问题。
Fourthly, there is no evidence to indicate that the building will be much larger than current need for student housing, and the university needs more office space. In order to control cost, the university should construct the building in proper scale.
办公用地的方面。
In conclusion, the author fails to substantiate his claim clearly. Because the evidence cited in the analysis is too weak to lend strong support to what the arguer suggests. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should convince us with more specific information.
结尾也不错。
每个点都找到了，但是分析不是很深入，都是一点而过，而且每个分析点后面没有总结哦。我不知道这样可以吗？

mikestoneUID: 2734495

In the argument, the arguer proposes a recommendation that they should commission a famous architect, known for experimental and futuristic buildings, to solve the housing problems. Reasons and plans are included. However, they are not convincing.

In the first place, the speaker says tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings. However, not all buildings designed by famous architects are merited to visit. It is possible that the experimental and futuristic building is commonly seen and most tourists are interested in them, even they are designed by celebrated architects. Moreover, surveys about the tourists’ tendency are not given. Maybe, most tourists just would like to visit classical buildings. And even the experimental and futuristic building is designed by the architect, it is not welcomed.

In the second place, the arguer fails to assume that tourists will pay money to visit the new building of Claitown University. Maybe these tourists think the buildings in university are free to visit, and that is the reason they come. So the university may hardly receive any pay. What's more, even tourists want to pay for that, the money earned may not cover the building costs. It is possible that tourists only pay a little money, whereas the costs are extremely high. Therefore the university may have to pay the rest for maintaining the building. Moreover, even the money from tourists can cover the costs at the beginning. However, we cannot guarantee that the population of tourists doesn't decrease in future. So, without these details about the tourists, we cannot accept the conclusion that the fees will soon cover the costs.

In the third place, no evidence shows that the university will attract new students as well as the donations of alumni. It is common sense that students’ choice and the donations of alumni have nothing to do with whether the university has famous buildings.

Finally, there's no evidence to support that part of the building is suitable to be used as offices. Maybe, the building will be too noisy for the faculties to work there. In addition, if there are many tourists, will the building be safe or will the students live there be satisfied?

In sum, the recommendation about the solution is not convincing. To make it more persuasive, the arguer should give more details and evidences mentioned above.

改蚂蚁的文章

The arguments suggests that the best solution to the problem of providing enough affordable houses for its students and funding the building of such housing is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic building. It is established upon the assumption that visitors would like to pay for visiting this new building and the charges would soon cover the cost. It also expects outcomes of building this new building such as attracting more students and more donations form alumni. However, all these assumption are incredible.

In the first place, it might be proper to build a new building to afford the student’s needs. Nevertheless, whether should we commission a famous architect or not need to be considered deeply. Firstly, the assumption that tourists would pay for visiting this new building lacks justification. Perhaps there have been already some of the architect’s works in this city, visitors have no occasion to visit this new building in the university. Or the architect’s works is famous for their outlook and there is no need for tourists to pay for appreciates the building. Secondly, even the visitors want to visit the new building, there is also no survey about how to charge the visitors is proper. If we charge more than the visitors' expectation, there would be less tourists and it may cost a long time to cover the building costs. On the contrary, if we charge less, it might be also a long time before we can cover the costs. Thirdly, even though the argument could provide a reasonable criterion for charging, there is no proof that the students would support this policy. Maybe the visiting of tourists would bring a lot negative effects to the students' studying so that students would oppose the policy of allowing the tourists to visit the new building. So it is not convincing that we should commission the famous architect.

In the second place, the proponent of this recommendation alleges that the university will attract more students and donations from alumni. There is no proof to substantiate this point. Let's first consider the first part of this expectation. The proponent ignores other crucial elements, such as the reputation of the university, the teaching quality of the university, and the facilities of it and so forth, which play much more important roles than this new building in attracting students. When it comes to attracting donations from alumni, this new building maybe play an opposite role for the reason that the alumni perhaps think the university no longer needs donations since it can afford to build up such a futuristic building. So the proponent should provide more information that this new building does have positive effects in this respect.

In the last place, the proponent assumes that part of the building can be used as office space, which is also doubtable. Firstly, there is no evidence supporting that this new building can afford the needs of the students. Perhaps the students' needs are hard to be contented only with this new building, let alone being used as office space. Secondly, even though there are some remainder rooms, perhaps they are not suitable to be used as office space since students’ activities maybe influence the teachers work or the appearance of teachers may affects the students' freedom. In short, the method of the building's use is not appropriate.

To sum up, though building a new building for affording the needs of students is right, the recommendation of commissioning a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings is not well justified. Therefore more surveys are needed to persuade the university to accept this proposal.

小的错误我帮你改了，总体来说值得学习的地方很多，没有什么建议了。能在半个小时内写一个600字的文章，实在太了不起了。

cycy881125UID: 2625420

written by AlanC

In this argument, it is said that to solve the problem of the housing and approach to fund the building, to commission a famous architect is the best way. To support this conclusion, the arguer gives the reason that this famous architect will attract tourists and then money taken from them would soon cover the cost of this building. In addition, the author gives the second reason that this building would attract the donation of students and alumni.

In the first place, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. The author just considers that tourist is willing to spend money on visiting this building of the famous architect. It is seemingly convincing, however, it exists some doubtful points that whether these tourists want to look around this building which is just designed for the housing of students. Even if this architect’s fascination is known all around the world, however, the student’s living room is not valuable enough for visiting, since saying that there is any worth of art is very reluctant. And even it is not worth visitor spending money on looking around. Therefore, before we have thought of the income being charged to the tourists, we should consider the worth of this students’ rooming house. Without enough art value, this building has just always been rooming house not appropriate for visiting.

On the other hand, although the students’ rooming house could be considered as owning enough value to be visited. How much income could this building get from the tourist would be a critical issue. Only depending on the fees from visiting, costs might not be covered. It is likely that this build is so far away from the major cities that it is not convenient enough for tourist to visit hence the number of tourist is not available for covering the costs. Therefore, such factors as the geographical location should be taken into account.

In the second place, the author has easily assume that the there will be new students and donations. Even though the housing condition of this room house is comfortable enough, the quality of instructing of this school is the primary purpose to attend in; the housing condition should not be the critical object. Without the teaching quality, the employment rate could not be mentioned, and attraction to the new students has not even been stated. On the other hand, donations of alumni have not interconnected with the building built by famous architect. It is the willingness of them to repay their schools that is the primary purpose. This reason is cited falsely.


To sum up, the arguer fails to analysis the evidence to the conclusion. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should have to supply the geographical location of this school along with the art value of this building to demonstrate the necessity of visiting it. In addition, the arguer should also provide that the quality of instructing of this school to illustrate the attending possibility of new students.



In the argument, the arguer proposes a recommendation that they should commission a famous architect, known for experimental and futuristic buildings, to solve the housing problems. Reasons and plans are included. However, they are not convincing.


In the first place, the speaker says tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings. However, not all buildings designed by famous architects are merited to visit. It is possible that the experimental and futuristic building is commonly seen and most tourists are interested in them, even they are designed by celebrated architects. Moreover, surveys about the tourists’ tendency are not given. Maybe, most tourists just would like to visit classical buildings. And even the experimental and futuristic building is designed by the architect, it is not welcomed.
这段话的写的有点问题，人们的意愿在文中已经给出了，他们就是喜欢看这个建筑师的一些建筑，因此，你的那句话就不应该写没有给出，而是应该说成是没有充分的给出。
In the second place, the arguer fails to assume that tourists will pay money to visit the new building of Claitown University. Maybe these tourists think the buildings in university are free to visit, and that is the reason they come. (这个例子举得有点牵强了哦，免不免费肯定是会事先规定好的，我感觉可能不太贴切，你试试换一个。)So the university may hardly receive any pay. What's more, even (是不是要改成even if)tourists want to pay for that, the money earned may not cover the building costs. It is possible that tourists only pay a little money, whereas the costs are extremely high. Therefore the university may have to pay the rest for maintaining the building. Moreover, even the money from tourists can cover the costs at the beginning. However, we cannot guarantee that the population (这是人口的意思 the number of )of tourists doesn't decrease in future. So, without these details about the tourists, we cannot accept the conclusion that the fees will soon cover the costs.

In the third place, no evidence shows that the university will attract new students as well as the donations of alumni. It is common sense that students’ choice and the donations of alumni have nothing to do with whether the university has famous buildings.
你说了没有理由证明学生的选择和知名建筑无关，然后呢？这是就应该写理由，为什么呢？因为建筑的好坏和学校的好坏联系不大。然后写结果，导致什么结果呢，结果就是学生选择和学校教学质量有关
Finally, there's no evidence to support that part of the building is suitable to be used as offices. Maybe, the building will be too noisy for the faculties to work there. In addition, if there are many tourists, will the building be safe or will the students live there be satisfied?

In sum, the recommendation about the solution is not convincing. To make it more persuasive, the arguer should give more details and evidences mentioned above.
总的来说吧，你的这篇文章。
第一，字数不够
第二，论点论据很勉强
第三，下笔很匆忙

鱼晒月亮UID: 2723622

临暄的
In above paragraph, the author points out that Claitown University would solve the problems include affordable housing for its students and its fund through commissioning a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings because the architect’s buildings can attract tourist to visit as well as new student and donations from alumni. Moreover, part of this large building can be used as office space. The author’s conclusion seems sound, however, there still exists several facets deserve our attention.

First of all, we have good reasons to doubt that commissioning a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings as the best solution to build such large building. Due to nothing about the number of students, so there always have other alternatives can solve the University’s problem; such alternatives may include renting buildings or building small one that meets the need. The two methods could quickly solve the problem of housing comparing to building large students housing and perhaps the University may afford it fully. Furthermore, even if commissioning such architect is the best suitable method for the students’ building, we still have suspicion on its income from tourists.   Although the author provides such common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect’s building, which is not meant that tourist will want to visit this new building just as the author expected. What is possible is that the new building is as the same types as other buildings the architect and the tourists have visits such building many times and are tired of them, or tourists can not pay attention on as well as appreciate the new building at all because it is too experimental and futuristic or too common, thus, the income from the fees charged to tourists will not soon cover the building costs because of few of visitation. Besides, even though such building can be built, it is possible that the new building have other space left after the university uses part of it as office thanks to its large space and if so, there would lead to resource waste.

Additionally, owing to many reasons above mentioned, maybe the new building would not attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And more importantly, students and alumni probably have interested in the new building, however, it seems that students will choose universities because of its quality of teaching, prospective etc and the alumni also will donate money or other thing because of their loyalty or gratitude to the university rather than one new building.

The last, as we debated above, in order to solve housing for students and building fund, the university should think second time before commissioning a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic building to build one large building. Otherwise, the university will not afford the new building and waste resource.

fly-2011UID: 2707582

The author asserts that Claitown University should construct a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings, and then students would live in. However, there are some illogical errors in his conclusion.

First, the author assumes that tourists are willing to visit this new building. Though tourists have interest in some of the architect's buildings, it does not mean that they would have inclination to this new building. There are many differences between the architect's buildings and the new building in college. The architect's buildings have many meanings which attract visitors but the new building just constructed for living purpose. Thus,  the new building would not attract visitors.

Second, the author asserts income from the fees will cover the building costs. However, the author does not provide clear information about how much will spend on constructing the new building, and how much will charge for tourists. It is likely that the income from the fees charged to tourists will lower than the building costs. Thus, the assumption can not be supported.

Thirdly, the author assumes that the new building will attract new students and donations from alumni. But students may want to select colleges for its fame, educational quality and so forth. Just the present information could not tell us students would like to enter it. If the University has bad educational feature, then students would not select it no matter how it is attractive. If alumni from this college have no interest in it, then they would not donate money to it. With these reasons, the author could not get to his conclusion.

In sum, the author can not get to his conclusion that the construction of the building can success. He must provide more information in order to support it.

imlifewillingUID: 2706999

3# mikestone

俺这个没有限时啊！！！！:loveliness:

_sweet_potato_UID: 2751233

我想请问一下一个问题:

这个题目开头说这个大学需要给学生提供负担得起的住房, 并找到资助这些住房的途径.

但他后面就直接说最好的解决方法是请一个建筑师干嘛干嘛的...
根本没提到学生是否负担得起这个问题

请问这个是否需要攻击呢?