argument30~~严格限时，有拍必回

ella_dylUID: 2595060

TOPIC: ARGUMENT30 - According to information recently reported in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased significantly over the past several years. So far this year over 100,000 people have arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport, compared with only 80,000 last year and 40,000 the year before. Eliottown's train station has received more than 50,000 passengers this year, compared with less than 40,000 last year and 20,000 the year before. Clearly tourism in Eliottown has been increasing, thanks to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year. Therefore, the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly.
WORDS: 392     TIME: 00:30:00      DATE: 2010-3-20 上午 11:12:25

In this argument, the author advocates that the funding for the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art should be increased significantly. To justify this claim, the author cites the increased number of people who arrived in Eliottown on flights and by train to prove that the opening of two places has contributed a lot to the shape increase of travelers to Eliottown's. Although this argument seems reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived.

First and foremost, the increased number of people who arrived in Eliottown does not necessarily infer the boom of tourism. We can not make sure that if all passengers are travelling to Eliottown. It is entirely possible that Eliottown is not their destination but a traffic transfer spot, they will leave for other places later. Or perhaps the aim of most people arriving in Eliottown is shopping or business rather than travelling.

Also, the author unfairly contributes the boom of Eliottown's tourism to opening of the park and museum. Since the author does not provide any information about the background information of this certain year, we can not rule out the possibilities that this year is a special case. Perhaps it is because Eliottown is holding a significant event that attracts so many people visitors. Even if the case is general, we can not ignore other relevant factors. It is highly possible that the overall landscape of Eliottown is more appeal to travelers. They may enjoy the modern buildings, fashion atmosphere or the cleanness of the city. Thus, without ruling out all this possibilities, the author can not hastily conclude that the opening of the park and museum is attributable to the increase of tourism.

Granted that the park and museum are really attractive to travelers, it does not mean we should increase the funding significantly. Since there is no evidence showing that these two places are suffering financial problems, this extra funding is unwarranted.

In all, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide evidence that it is the opening of the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art--not some other factors---that helps to increase the tourism of Eliottown. Moreover, the author should conduct a comprehensive survey about the two places to make it clear whether the extra funding is necessary.

.

xwjsarahUID: 2627269

In this argument, the author advocates that the funding for the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art should be increased significantly. To justify this claim, the author cites the increased （一般是用increasing 因为数字不是被增长的）number of people who arrived in Eliottown on flights and by train to prove that the opening of two places （这两个地方还是应该点明的，否则文章不知道在指什么）has（have） contributed a lot to the shape increase of travelers to Eliottown's. Although this argument seems reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived.

First and foremost, the increased number of people who arrived in Eliottown does not necessarily infer the boom of tourism. We can not make sure that if all passengers are travelling to Eliottown. It is entirely possible that Eliottown is not their destination but a traffic transfer spot, they will leave for other places later. Or perhaps the aim of most people arriving in Eliottown is shopping or business rather than travelling.

Also, the author unfairly contributes the boom of Eliottown's tourism to opening of the park and museum. Since the author does not provide any information about the background information of this certain year, we can not rule out the possibilities that this year is a special case. Perhaps it is because Eliottown is holding a significant event that attracts so many people visitors. Even if the case is general, we can not ignore other relevant factors. It is highly possible that the overall landscape of Eliottown is more appeal（appealing ) to travelers. They may enjoy the modern buildings, fashion atmosphere or the cleanness of the city. Thus, without ruling out all this possibilities, the author can not hastily conclude that the opening of the park and museum is attributable to the increase of tourism.

(while)Granted that the park and museum are(is) really attractive to travelers, it does not mean we should increase the funding significantly. Since there is no evidence showing that these two places are suffering financial problems, this extra funding is unwarranted.



In all, the conclusion (which)reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide evidence that it is the opening of the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art--not some other factors---that helps to increase the tourism of Eliottown.(这句话并没有说清楚开设New central park and Museum of Modern Art 的其他原因是为了什么，作者要提供的证据是要证明什么？可以说这两个landmarks 的开设是如何吸引游客的，请作者举例并给出详细的数据说明） Moreover, the author should conduct a comprehensive survey about the two places to make it clear whether the extra funding is necessary.
整篇文章总体是不错的，但是在表达细节上有点小问题，可能是时间仓促吧。但是我觉得我们的文章存在共性那就是写的时候无法很好的组织逻辑顺序，促使有的看不明白，有点匪夷所思。
这是我的文章，麻烦帮看看https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1074698&extra=