argument 215 by charles

charlesAFAUID: 2750393

题目：ARGUMENT215 - The following appeared in a letter to the Grandview City Council from a local business leader.

"During last year's severe drought, when the water supply in the Grandview city reservoir fell to an extremely low level, the city council imposed much more rigid water-rationing rules. But just after these rules were imposed, industrial growth in the area declined. This clearly shows that the new rationing rules have hurt industry in Grandview. Therefore, to promote the health of the local economy, the city council should now stop water rationing."
字数：          用时：          日期：2010/2/20 11:38:03
模考遇上超低频，一开始写得简直就是垃圾，从改了，花了不少时间，bless me 不要考场也来这种状况。

Grounding on the rules of water-rationing and based on the fact that a declined in industry growth, the arguer concludes that they should now stop water rationing to promote the health of the local economy. It appears reasonable and logical. However, on further reflection, it reveals several hidden fallacies. The reasons are stated as follows.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that there is a casual relationship between the water-rationing rule and the declining of industry growth. Although this is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate the crucial assumption. It is very likely that the industry in the city is getting worse due to the server drought. The drought has influenced the industry to a large extent. From the aspect of employees, they are not having enough energy under such dry atmosphere. In the terms of the equipment, it is might be the case that they cannot not work well which is due to the lack of moisture. Or perhaps, the industrial products cannot preserve well in this weather. So there is a declining in industrial growth, however, it is not because the rationing-water rules. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.

One step closer, the arguer also assumes that to promote the health of the local economy amounts to help the increasing of industrial growth. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm the assumption. It might be the case that the growth of industry is too rapid to be health. And there finally emerge the problem and begin to have a decrease. If it is already not health in the past, we cannot promote the local economy by stopping the rationing-water rule. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other explanations, the arguer cannot base on unwarranted reasons to bolster the recommendation.

Even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumption, the arguer just simply assumes that stop water rationing is an applicable way to help and neither any conclusive evidence nor any scientific evidence is provided to affirm the assumption. It is entirely possible that the stopping will lead to more serious problems. The agriculture may have a great loss without enough water supplying. People use the water as usual and therefore they cannot have enough water to sustain. When these problems occur, it is not only the problem about the health of economy, but also the problem about the health of living in this city. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer should explain that either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.

Overall, the argument, while it is very plausible at first, contains several flaws mentioned above. A more specific statement about the reason of decreasing in industrial growth is needed in order to make the argument forceful. To further improve the conclusion, the arguer should make sure what will happen if they stop water rationing.

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

Grounding on the rules of water-rationing and based on the fact that这里其实可以不用写the fact that a declined in industry growth, the arguer concludes that they should now stop water rationing to promote the health of the local economy. It appears reasonable and logical. However, on further reflection, it reveals several hidden fallacies. The reasons are stated as follows.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that there is a casual relationship between the water-rationing rule and the declining of industry growth. Although this is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate the crucial assumption. It is very likely that the industry in the city is getting worse due to the serversevere,拼写错误 drought. The drought has influenced the industry to a large extent. From the aspect of employees, they are not having enough energy under such dry atmosphere. In the terms of the equipment, it is这里不用is might be the case that they cannot not work well which is due to the lack of moisture. Or perhaps, the industrial products cannot preserve well in this weather. So there is a declining in industrial growth, however, it is not写rather than更加好 because of the rationing-water rules. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.

One step closer, the arguer also assumes that to promote the health of the local economy amounts to help the increasing of industrial growth. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm the assumption. It might be the case that the growth of industry is too rapid to be health. And there finally emerge the problem and begin to have a decrease. If it is already not health in the past, we cannot promote the local economy by stopping the rationing-water rule. 这句话会undermine你的point，表达不清楚，或许删掉更加合适Without accounting for and ruling out these and other explanations, the arguer cannot base on unwarranted reasons to bolster the recommendation.

Even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumption, the arguer just simply assumes that stop water rationing is an applicable way to help and neither any conclusive evidence nor any scientific evidence is provided to affirm the assumption.这句很赞 It is entirely possible that the stopping will lead to more serious problems. The agriculture may have a great loss without enough water supplying. People use the water as usual and therefore they cannot have enough water to sustain. When these problems occur, it is not only the problem about the health of economy, but also the problem about the health of living in this city. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer should explain that either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
以上这段很好的说~
Overall, the argument, while it is very plausible at first, contains several flaws mentioned above. A more specific statement about the reason of decreasing in industrial growth is needed in order to make the argument forceful. To further improve the conclusion, the arguer should make sure what will happen这个表达不清楚，make sure最好换掉 if they stop water rationing.

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

总体不错啦，有些语法错误，倒数第三段的一些表达不够清楚，甚至对整个逻辑都造成了不好的影响。
如果要给分，4分左右是比较合理的吧。
这是我的一点拙见，以及我的：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1062140-1-1.html
谢谢