ARGUMENT128~ 静候砖拍~ 有拍必回

xiwartsUID: 2606033

ARGUMENT128 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Garden City Gazette.


"To address the parking problems in our downtown business district, it has been proposed that the city increase parking capacity by building a four-story parking garage. However, this project would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza. Because the pedestrian plaza is an important attraction that draws people to the downtown area, improvements to it will increase business for downtown merchants. The merchants' higher profits will ultimately produce increased tax revenues for the city. Therefore, we should invest in the plaza improvements first and then use the revenues thus generated to pay for the construction of the parking garage."




The author proposes to first invest in the plaza improvements, in order to gain taxes need for the parking garage. The claim is supported by the comparison of costs between the two alternatives and the merit, which attracts more people and gains profits to pay more tax revenues. After careful scrutiny about the editorial, several flaws in the claim make the proposition unconvincing.

The writer first fails to prove the cause-and-effect relationship between the comparison of the costs and the proposition. The author cited it is cheaper to improve the pedestrian plaza,

wanting to provide a reason determining the choice. However, the arguer does not provide us the information that the city budget of the projects and the cost matter. It is entirely possible that the city government has enough taxes to pay the projects, taking without the consideration of costs. Without information about that, it is ungrounded to take costs as one of the factors of the choice.

Secondly, the arguer fails to make a comparison between the people attracted by the two projects, only emphasizing on merits of the plaza project is biased. There may be the same result of drawing more people stated above in the editorial, which is brought about by building the parking garage. Mentioned as a problem for parking in downtown business district, it is possible that because of solving the difficulty of finding parking lots, more people would be attracted there. Without the benefits analysis between the two projects, it is too hard to make the conclusion that only the pedestrian plaza project could bring more people to the district.

Given that the plaza project indeed attracts more people, it is too hush to claim that more people mean more profits and tax revenues. It is possible that the increased number of people are just taking a walk to see the newly improved plaza and going window-shopping. And there are many factors influencing the merchants’ profits, such as the cost of their commodities and the operational fees. If the other factors are not precluded, it can hardly make an equation between more people and more profits. Without more profits, we could seldom expect a large sum of tax revenues.

Finally, providing with more taxes revenues brought by plaza project, it is indefensible to claim that the city should rely on the revenue gained from plaza project to pay for the parking garage project. There are many approaches to gain revenues, why should the city wait for them generated from the plaza project to get the other project? It is entire possible revenues are enough to construct both project at the same time.

In sum, the argument is groundless because of its unconvincing evidence. To bolster the proposition, the author should provide information about the necessity of choice between the projects and factors influencing the determination.

xiwartsUID: 2606033

希望bela斑竹还没有改哦~  自己觉得不太好又重新改了一下~

TOPIC: ARGUMENT128 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Garden City Gazette.

"To address the parking problems in our downtown business district, it has been proposed that the city increase parking capacity by building a four-story parking garage. However, this project would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza. Because the pedestrian plaza is an important attraction that draws people to the downtown area, improvements to it will increase business for downtown merchants. The merchants' higher profits will ultimately produce increased tax revenues for the city. Therefore, we should invest in the plaza improvements first and then use the revenues thus generated to pay for the construction of the parking garage."



The author proposes to first invest in the plaza improvements, in order to gain taxes need for the parking garage. The claim is supported by the comparison of costs between the two alternatives and the merit, which attracts more people and gains profits to pay more tax revenues. After careful scrutiny about the editorial, several flaws in the claim make the proposition unconvincing.

The writer first fails to prove the cause-and-effect relationship between the comparison of the costs and the proposition. The author cited it is cheaper to improve the pedestrian plaza,   wanting to provide a reason determining the choice. However, the arguer does not provide us the information how the costs of each are estimated and even whether the costs matter to the decesion. It is entirely possible that the city government has enough taxes to pay the projects, so they would not take costs into consideration. Without information about those, it is ungrounded to take costs as one of the factors of the choice, not to mention the proposition of plaza project.

Secondly, the arguer fails to make a comparison between the benefits brought by the two projects, absent information about the benefits of garage project and only emphasizing on merits of the plaza project is biased. There may be the same result of drawing more people stated above in the editorial, which is brought about by building the parking garage. Mentioned as a problem for parking in downtown business district, it is possible that because of solving the difficulty of finding parking lots, more people would be attracted there. And another possibility maybe the plaza development could not attract more people , because the it would be more difficult to find a parking lot. Without the benefits comparing analysis between the two projects, it is too hasty to make the conclusion that only the pedestrian plaza project could be benefit from bring more people to the district.

Given that the plaza project indeed attracts more people, it is too hush to claim that more people mean more profits and tax revenues. It is possible that the increased number of people are just taking a walk to see the newly improved plaza and going window-shopping. And there are many factors influencing the merchants’ profits, such as the cost of their commodities and the operational fees. If the other factors are not precluded, it can hardly make an equation between more people and more profits. Without more profits, we could seldom expect a large sum of tax revenues.

Finally, providing with more taxes revenues brought by plaza project, it is indefensible to claim that the city should rely on the revenue gained from plaza project to pay for the parking garage project. First the author ignored the how long would it take to collect such large amount of taxes only through the plaza project. The parking problem may be urgent, it is unwise to wait for a long time.Since there are many approaches to gain revenues, why should the city wait for them generated from the plaza project to get the other project? It is entire possible revenues are enough to construct both project at the same time.

In sum, the argument is groundless because of its unconvincing evidence. To bolster the proposition, the author should provide information about the necessity of choice between the projects and factors influencing the determination.

xiwartsUID: 2606033

还有问题想请教bela斑竹~  之前有看到说“survey、report之内事实性的论断不需要攻击”，像这篇argument里面的 the garage project would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza 这个点需要攻击它是如何做出估计的吗？ 比如之前有想到说要考虑间接成本人力成本之类的~
非常感谢bela斑竹哦~  辛苦辛苦~

xiwartsUID: 2606033

4# Bela1229


原来的有太多地方语法错误都没有看到…
而且整个攻击的逻辑也不连贯
还有一个关于survey和report问题想请教bela斑斑~
调查的权威性可靠性这些就不用攻击了是吧~ 要不感觉基本每篇argument都可以把这个套上去了~
谢谢斑斑仔细的修改啊~  可惜我只能加一分~~

"To address the parking problems in our downtown business district, it has been proposed that the city increase parking capacity by building a four-story parking garage. However, this project would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza. Because the pedestrian plaza is an important attraction that draws people to the downtown area, improvements to it will increase business for downtown merchants. The merchants' higher profits will ultimately produce increased tax revenues for the city. Therefore, we should invest in the plaza improvements first and then use the revenues thus generated to pay for the construction of the parking garage."



The author proposes to first invest in the plaza improvements, in order to gain taxes needed for the parking garage. The claim is supported by the comparison of costs between the two alternatives and the merit of attracting more people and gains profits to pay more tax revenues. After careful scrutiny about the editorial, several flaws in the claim make the proposition unconvincing.

The arguer firstly fails to provide statistics to show that the project of parking garage would cost more than the plaza improvement would.  It is entirely likely that the plaza designer is not satisfied with the current arrangement of merchants; therefore the plaza needs an overall reshape, making the cost more expensive than building a 4-story garage.  Without the detailed data of the costs, it is ungrounded to claim the plaza project is cheaper. (原来攻击cost不是影响原则的因素确实很牵强然后重新写成了成本低的判断不能令人信服，然后猜看到bela斑竹说不用攻击fact…)

Secondly, the arguer fails to make a comparison between the benefits brought by the two projects; with absent information about the benefits of garage project, the author’s opinion which(这里可以不用which吧？)
only emphasize on merits of the plaza project is biased. There may be the same result of drawing more people stated above in the editorial, which is brought about by building the parking garage. (这里本来想说修建停车场也可以吸引更多人，这样下一句还显得很重复，就直接删去)Mentioned as a problem for parking in downtown business district, it is possible that because of solving the difficulty of finding parking lots, more people who often drive cars would be attracted there. On the other hand, it would be possible that
the plaza development could not attract more people, because with the potential more people coming to the district it would be more difficult to find a parking lot. To bolster the assertion, the writer should provide benefits comparing analysis between the two projects.

Given that the plaza project indeed draws more people, it is too rush to claim that there is a correlation between the number of visitors and tax revenues. It is possible that the increased number of people is just taking a walk to see the newly improved plaza and going window-shopping, leaving the amount of consumption flat. And there are many factors influencing the merchants’ profits, such as the rental cost of their stores (原本想的是有商品成本价格的因素，仔细一想如果成本不变售价不变确实卖的越多利润增多。) and the operational fees. If the rental cost and operational fees go up sharply, outweighing the possible increase of more vistors, the profits could even decrease. If the
other factors are not precluded, we can hardly make a cause-and-effect conclusion. (请问bela斑竹这个是不是还是很Chiglish) And without more profits, we could not expect a large sum of tax revenues.

Finally, even providing with more taxes revenues brought by plaza project, it is indefensible to claim that the city should rely on the revenue gained from plaza project to invest in the parking garage project. First the author
fails to consider
how long it would take to collect such large amount of taxes only through the plaza project. The parking problem may be urgent; it is unwise to wait for a long time. Since there are many approaches to gain revenues, why should the city wait for them generated from the plaza project? It is entirely possible that the revenues accumulated before are enough to construct both projects at the same time. Or thanks to enough government appropriate budgets, it comes out together with solving the current parking problem and improving the plaza.

In sum, the argument is groundless because of its unconvincing
reasoning. To bolster the proposition, the author should provide the information of costs and benefits of each project. And the higher profits should be assured to guarantee more taxes revenues. Moreover, the writer should provide the time span and budget of investment.