【Big Fish】3月12日Argument158-By jjooyy

jjooyyUID: 2704028

TOPIC: ARGUMENT158 - The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

The announcement claims that there is no necessity ro restrict the size of garbage sites or the number of homes built near the sites. Although supported by a statewide study, the conclusion is untenable for some logic fallacies.

First of all, the author fails to consider other effects of garbage sites on people. When the garbage sites are full of trash, undoubtedly, there are some psychological effects on people around. Normally, people would be in a bad mood passing through them. When living around them, especially in summer days, they would more or less be bad-tempered, resulting in more quarrelling or fighting. Also, people who have to live with them are limited to stay in home. This, from a long term, contributes greatly on their unhealthy living methods.

Secondly, the number of sites and people checked are too little to represent the whole state. Nor to mention the five sites and 300 people could be not random, but relatively intensive in one place. If the study only conduct the study in places where rashes incidences are quite few, is that totally possible that in other places of the state, the conditions are much worse?

Thirdly, no clear evidence has been proved to support the idea that no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. On the contrary, from the argument, a slightly higher incidence of the rashes near the largest trash sites lends more possibility to the correlation. Is it too early to define no correlation between them, with no other data provided to prove it?

Finally, supposing that there is no correlation between the size of trash sites and people's health, no restriction is still untenable for other considerations. Smaller size of trash sites and fewer people living near the trash could contribute to the neatness of cities, and the development of society. Also, residents would not be happy to live around the trash sites.

In conclusion, while the author maintains no restrictions are needed for the size of trash size and the number of homes near them, it is unconvincing for the study and the conclusion.

似乎今天找到漏洞不多。。。也没有按照顺序来

swolf54UID: 2421931

1.语言没什么问题，但是不够compelling，ARGUE可以去参考一下模板，不会被盘雷同的。
2.罗列错误时，先罗列句语句之间的错误，最后再罗列句内可能出现的错误。
3.罗列错误时，段与段之间用让步来衔接。比如说 1 paragraph → even if I concede that XXXX, but YYYYY (2 paragraph)→even if I admit that OOOO, but XXXXX
4.最后一段可以提一些改进的方法，让文章更据整体性。

SansouciUID: 2755036

TOPIC: ARGUMENT158 - The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
The announcement claims that there is no necessity to restrict the size of garbage sites or the number of homes built near the sites.
这里应该概括的说明下作者给的论据Although supported by a statewide study, the conclusion is untenable for some logic fallacies.
First of all, the author fails to consider other effects of garbage sites on people. When the garbage sites are full of trash, undoubtedly, there are some psychological effects on people around. Normally, people would be in a bad mood passing through them. When living around them, especially in summer days, they would more or less be bad-tempered, resulting in more quarrelling or
（貌似你很喜欢用or来连接，但我读了些老美的文章，论文之类的，他们好像更喜欢用and来连接。也不一定对，只是我的一点点看法）fighting. Also, people who have to live with them are limited to stay in home. This, from a long term, contributes greatly on their unhealthy living methods.
Secondly, the number of sites and people checked are too little to represent the whole state. Nor to mention the five sites and 300 people could be not random, but relatively intensive in one place. If the study only conduct the study in places where rashes incidences are quite few, is that totally possible that in other places of the state, the conditions are much worse? 一段最好不要用问句结尾哦，是你问阅卷老师还是老师问你呢？

Thirdly, no clear evidence has been proved to support the idea that no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. On the contrary, from the argument, a slightly higher incidence of the rashes near the largest trash sites lends more possibility to the correlation. Is it too early to define no correlation between them, with no other data provided to prove it?一样的问题
Finally, supposing that there is no correlation between the size of trash sites and people's health, no restriction is still untenable for other considerations. Smaller size of trash sites and fewer people living near the trash could contribute to the neatness of cities, and the development of society. Also, residents would not be happy to live around the trash sites.
In conclusion, while the author maintains no restrictions are needed for the size of trash size and the number of homes near them, it is unconvincing for the study and the conclusion.

谬误不在多，重要是找到之后解释清楚谬误并纠正
ARGEMENT的行文应该是要层层让步式的，逻辑结构才比较好，意思就是指出的下一个谬误最好是在假设上一个谬误成立的情况下不正确的

jjooyyUID: 2704028

3# Sansouci
ARGU的谬误 不一定要层层让步，哪有这样统一的结构。。。ETS给出的结构有多种，重要的是讲清楚漏洞吧。。
楼主不要被某机构给灌输了。。

SansouciUID: 2755036

其实可能是我没有讲清楚，argument是大致是可以分为并列和递进两大类的
前者用让步显得逻辑要清楚些，后者就按前提-论据-结论的顺序来攻击就好了
你觉得呢？？