查看: 1174|回复: 3

[a习作temp] 第一篇argu限不了时……超嫩求拍会回但是很拙劣 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 188
注册时间: 2008-11-30
精华: 0
帖子: 0

发表于 2010-2-21 14:20:53 |显示全部楼层

本帖最后由 112358 于 2010-2-21 14:26 编辑

argu77： Thecities of East Sacunda and West Sacunda are in an earthquake-prone area. Since1985 both cities have had stringent building codes requiring all newbuildings to have specific features designed to prevent damage in anearthquake. Buildings built before 1985 are exempt from the codes, but manybuilding owners have modified their buildings to make them conform to the 1985codes.
Lastyear a major earthquake hit the area, and many people lost their homes.
The number of people who were left homeless was much higher in EastSacunda than in West Sacunda, however, so we can conclude that buildingowners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings so as tobring them up to the 1985 code standards

The argument is well-presented, but lack of a sound base and sufficient evidences. By comparing of the number of people who were left homeless in these two cities after that major earthquake, the argument whose conclusion is building owners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings to bring them to the 1985 code standards seems logical.

However, the whole comparison relies on a series of unsubstantiated premises which render it unconvincing as it stands.The first premise is the damages in the earthquake can't be equal to two cities. If East Sacunda was just above the focus of the earthquake last year,the damage there could be obviously much more serious than in West Sacunda. So no matter how much people there were likely to modify their houses, a larger number in East is certain. Grant that the damages were equal, there is still no sufficient evidence that features in building codes in these two different cities are totally equal. Then weaker houses made more people homeless in East.

Even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the author's comparison remained vague. The statistics were conducted to show how much houses were destroyed after the earthquake. But the number of people who were left homeless is invalid if there were already alot of people homeless in East. And even the statistics author offered are people who lost their buildings just because that major earthquake, it is still invalid. As we know, earthquake can wreak havoc on cities. So there must be some people died. It becomes more and more imperfect that the statistics to support the conclusion.

Even assuming that the survey data accurately reflect the comparison between numbers of victims in two cities, the argument unfairly link the houses severely damaged to it. Since there is no evidence to indicate that buildings all are the same in size, region, age, the buildings in West may almost be empty or deserted or newly built after 1985. Instead of support the connection, those three factors all alternatives. So a more appropriate data should be the number of those wrecked ones built before1985.

In sum, the survey’s statistical reliability is unsound, not to speak of two assumptive premises. To strengthen the argument the author must provide clear evidence such as effective data. And what’s more, to analyze another angle which can reflect conditions of buildingsbuilt before 1985 in East and West Sacunda city after not only that major earthquake but all after 1985 may be a better access to the argument.

觉得这个题目还是很简单的随机抽到会有很多范文的影子吧……个人语言比较成问题……issue同愁中
大家狠拍吧 qq443897383 交友或者传授经验均可…