本帖最后由 海王泪 于 2010-2-26 16:39 编辑
The author concludes that they can bring about revitalization on city's neighborhoods by installing lighting similar to （去掉the that in） what Belleville(B)have done. However, the evidence he cites fails to substantiate this proposal.
关于下面BODY第一段第一句
Ignoring other measures that B may have adopted这句作用不明
1）让步指出作者的假设吗（即是否只采取Lightning措施）？那就应该说“Supposing B have adopted only one measures before the decline in vandalism， the author incorrectly attributes….”
2)如果为了指出存在其他措施，是破坏公物减少的真正他因，那就应该在本段之前应该讨论过具体其他措施，然后通过这句转折，在逻辑链上推进到本段内容。你这里这句不像转折。
转折的话也建议说清晰一些“Ignoring if there are some other measures which make more contribution to decline vandalism, the author incorrectly …”
看了本段内容，你的意思应该是（1）的那种吧？
然后指出除措施以外还有一些基础性因素会影响犯罪率，这里有个小疏忽。
应该是基础性因素的变化影响犯罪率的降低。所以帮你加上the change of
Ignoring other measures that B may have adopted, the author incorrectly attributes the lower rate of vandalism to the lighting policy. He offers not more specifics such as （the change of）regulations, policy distributions and people's attitude towards the crime, which can all affect the (declination of) crime rate, in the central business district. Possibly, it is not the lighting alone but the combination of various factors that reduces the vandalism. In the city of Amburg, however, there might be no such preferable environment that the policy may exert less influence on the crime control. Also, no attitude and reaction towards the intensive lighting from the criminal are given. Perhaps, they deem it useless and nonsensical as to pose no threat. Unless an clear relationship between the installation of intensive lighting and the decline rate of vandalism can be estabilished, the author's deduction fails to be credible.
关于Body第一段批驳内容
觉得基本因素如规章制度、政策分布和人民态度感觉挺抽象的。。。没太明白意思。。然后突然跳到说人民觉得强光对破坏罪无多大用处，觉得这段很跳，说实话没看明白。。
（我觉得作者原本意思是想说While people have more impulsion to destroy things in dark road or corner, intensity lighting could help expose vandals’ identity, decline their motivation, make easier police arresting and thus pose threat to vandalism in public）(你似乎没有回应作者这个意思，而一味否认说等useless and nonsensical to pose threat，似乎没抓住这个Measure的意义所在。)
建议：指出It is the purpose of lightening（像6分ARGU解释Protective and preventive gear那样），然后指出尽管强光是有轻微效果的但是在A区不同基础条件下很可能不及B区有效，比如说A区的人就是不知廉耻，比如说A区规章制度本来就不严谨。是否MATCH你的意思？
Besides, the author confuses the vandalism and the overall crimes and thus mistakenly overrates the influence of the lighting. Apparently, the former may occupy merely a small fraction of the latter, and that given no information on the actual social situations, we do not know what kind of crimes prevail. Perhaps it is the murdery（murder就好）, robory（robbery双写B后是E！） or other violent attacks that pose most of the danger here. As no evidence is cited to verify the efficacy of lighting for the prevention of those crimes, the author cannot convincingly ensure a safer and more peaceful environment around （for residents）.
BODY第二段批驳内容
批驳的重要点之一，Vandalism并不等于Crimes
然而我觉得这里可以更好地借机立意，即Vandalism本身反而并不会太大地影响Residents生活，Murder, rob 那些才是真正可怕并最终引起declining neighborhoods的原因. 关注Lightening对其他Truly significant crime是否起作用, 这对于a safer and more peaceful environment 尤为重要。
Even assuming that the lighting policy indeed works well for most of the crimes and (also works effective in Ambug, 个人建议) can be applied to
the city of Amburg, the author cannot persuasively justify the assertion that the declining neighbohoods（neighborhood） of the city can be revived (by only controlling crimes, 建议加这句). The underlying assumption is that it is the rampant crimes that result in the declining and that by controlling the crime rate, the development of that region can be secured. No information is given to show the direct or primary causes for the declining. Perhaps, it is the lagged economic development, the polluted environment or the city planning that make the region fall behind. Correspondingly, even with safer social environment, its recovery cannot be guaranteed. Without a clear understanding of the area, the author fails to offer reliable correlations between the crime and the declining and thus cannot support his assertion.
感觉一味否认Reduce Crimes的作用似乎语气上似乎有点过了，减少犯罪无疑是会有助于解决Declining Neighborhoods的问题，何必骂得他那么惨呢？
你看看这样子是否会委婉一些？ （TS后Even assuming….the author cannot justify….）Only focus on controlling crimes rate may mask other fatal problems and is helpless to revitalization. It might be the lagged economic development, the polluted environment or the city balabala 继续下去～～～(当然，只是个人建议而已，你看怎么写着舒服就怎么写)
In sum, the author posits his deduction on the insufficient information and indefensible links between the lighting, the decreased crime and the development neighborhoods. To amend or bolster the conclusion, he may as well conduct more detailed study to find out the real impact of the policy and to factor in local situations.
询问问题：
1.B市的缩写的应用方式是合理的吗？ 合理的话我以后也这么干～～哈哈·· 求解释
2.第一段批驳如规章制度、政策分布和人民态度的变化实在没明白想表达什么意思？能否PM解释一下？
小螃蟹加油～我3.9考··到时候找你拍··哈 | 
发表于 2010-2-26 11:17:28
发表于 2010-2-26 16:29:35
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
