【1010G精英组】ISSUR&ARGU 习作——by Group Choice

lxklysUID: 2738043

argu161 by lxklys

161In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study hadmisrepresented their reading habits.

由leeville大学调查的leeville市民的阅读习惯显示他们最喜欢古典文学

由同样的研究者对全市公共图书馆的调查显示，市民最经常借的书是神秘小说

因此，那些在第一次调查中被访的回答者错误表示了他们的阅读习惯

According to the conclusions of two studies on reading habits of Leeville citizens show different from each other, which are conducted by the same researchers, the arguer deduces that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. However, this argument can’t be convinced because it defies simple logic and suffers from several fallacies.

Firstly, the first study conducted by the university of Leeville can’t verify anything, for it didn’t state enough information about the area of the survey, about the respondents’ backgrounds. Maybe the researchers just make a survey in their own university and take the students major in literary classic as the respondents. If so, their answers about preferring the literary classic as reading material are much normal, for they may finish their paper on a daily basis through reading these relevant books. As a result, without ruling out these possible factors, the conclusion of the first study can’t represent the whole citizens’ reading habits in Leeville.

Secondly, the result in the second study can’t be convinced enough, for the researchers equal the type of books mostly frequently checked out of the public libraries with the reading habits of Leeville citizens. Maybe the people who usually like the mystery novels are commuters so that they don’t have much spare time to read in a library. Naturally, they often check it out to satisfy the hankering. Moreover, the people who prefer the literary classics are almost the students and aged, namely they have more leisure time to stay in a library to go through books everyday so that there is no need to check the books out. And maybe the latter are more popular. On the basis of these above, the conclusion in the second study can’t portray the reading habits of citizens, either.

Finally, even the first study involves enough information of respondents all over the city and the books checked out can mean the reading habits of the citizens in Leeville, it can’t concludes that
the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. The respondents in the first study may be not the people often check out the books, which means the two studies can’t be comparable just for there was not a rational link between them; even they were conducted by the same researchers. In that case, without giving other evidences that can prove the conclusion, it fails to deduce that the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits.

In sum, the arguer fails to give enough proof to verify the first study can represent the whole citizens’ reading habits without introducing enough backgrounds, and mistakes the types of books checked out as the favorite ones of raters, finally he defies the logic to make a conclusion that the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits. In a word, the argument full of fallacies can’t persuade me to believe it.

elevenkarUID: 2791267

修改yuanlinqing的文章
argument161 因为掉色直接传了word附件

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

argu161 by lxklys
161In a study ofreading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville,most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material.However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that thetype of book most frequently checked out of each of
the publiclibraries
in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concludedthat the respondents in the first study hadmisrepresented their reading habits.
由leeville大学调查的leeville市民的阅读习惯显示他们最喜欢古典文学
由同样的研究者对全市公共图书馆的调查显示，市民最经常借的书是神秘小说
因此，那些在第一次调查中被访的回答者错误表示了他们的阅读习惯
According to the conclusions of two studies on readinghabits of Leeville citizens show different（这里用形容词是不是有点不合适呢？） fromeach other, which are conducted by the same researchers, the arguer deduces（好词） that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented theirreading habits. However, this argument can’t be convinced because it defies simple logic and suffersfrom several fallacies.
【第一段将A的逻辑链进行了理清。十分羡慕，我自己在第一段还是做不到】


Firstly, the first study conducted by the university of Leeville can’t verify anything, for itdidn’t state enough information about the area of the survey, about therespondents’ backgrounds. Maybe the researchers just make a survey in their ownuniversity and take the students major in literary classic as the respondents.If so, their answers （respones是否会更合适呢？）
about preferring the literary classic as reading material are muchnormal, for they may finish their paper on a daily basis through reading theserelevant books. As a result, without ruling out these possible factors, theconclusion of the first study can’t represent the whole citizens’ readinghabits in Leeville.
【第一个study的样本以及调查地区可能存在问题】
Secondly, the result in the second study can’t be convinced（convincing） enough, for theresearchers equal the type of books mostly frequently checked out of the publiclibraries with the reading habits of Leeville citizens. Maybe the people whousually like the mystery novels are commuters so that they don’t have muchspare time to read in a library. Naturally, they often check it out to satisfythe hankering. Moreover, the people who preferthe literary classics are almost the students and aged,namely they have more leisure time to stay in a library to go throughbooks everyday so that there is no need to check the books out. And maybe thelatter are more popular. On the basis of these above, the conclusion in thesecond study can’t portray the reading habits ofcitizens, either.
【书本的被借出次数并不能反映人们对于书的喜好】
Finally, even the first study involves enoughinformation of respondents all over the city and the books checked out can meanthe reading habits of the citizens in Leeville, it can’t concludes that

the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. Therespondents in the first study may be not the people often check out the books,which means the two studies can’t be comparable just for there was not arational link between them; even they were conducted by the same researchers. Inthat case, without giving other evidences that can prove the conclusion, itfails to deduce that the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits.
【第一个研究中被测者与第二个研究中的被测者可能不是相同的人】

In sum, the arguer fails to give enough proof to verify the first study canrepresent the whole citizens’ reading habits without introducing enoughbackgrounds, and mistakes the types of books checked out as the favorite onesof raters, finally he defies the logic to make （ ofmaking ） aconclusion that the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits. In aword, the argument full of fallacies can’t persuade me to believe it.

首先，能看得出来你在尽量使用红宝力的单词，句子也在尽量的写长，不过句型其实可以多变一点。
其次，文章的结构还是很好的，文章的结尾是否该加入一些建议内容呢？其实我自己也不清楚。
最后，来谈谈你的逻辑攻击。鉴于这次文章中的逻辑错误比较少，你所攻击的样本问题占了一段基本上是没有问题的。不过我对你的第三段攻击有点不明白。你首先让步了第一个研究的有效性以及第二个研究能够表示城市中人们的阅读习惯。那么，因为第一个研究有效，所以他的结论是适用于所有的在L中的人的，那么不管参与第二个研究的人是否与参与第一个研究的人是否相同，他们之间的习惯应该是一致的。所以你的第三段的逻辑攻击是存在这一点问题的。
拙见至此，欢迎拍砖。

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

第八次作业   ARGUMENT 161
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者逻辑链
1． study1显示L城的人们喜欢看 classics
2．后来的study2发现人们从图书管借的书中，悬疑小说最多
3．得出结论study1的responders错误的描述了他们的阅读习惯。
攻击点：
1.  没有界定mystery novel和classic。有些书既是mystery novel 又是famous classic  
2．第一个实验的回答者不能代表所有人的阅读喜好。可能参加第一个调查的压根就没去过图书馆。比如更富裕的人他们就倾向于自己买书而非到图书馆借书。
3．用图书馆的借出书数量作为衡量人们阅读习惯的指标不具有说服性。有可能是人们倾向于收藏名著.而mystery novel却到图书馆借。没有给出图书馆的相关信息，有可能是图书馆的classic不让外借。

经过昨晚和上午的奋斗，终于把名报上了~  意外的睡了一下午~所以写的很晚~见谅见谅~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grounding on the study of some Leeville citizens which shows most of them preferred literary classics as reading material, considering a follow-up study which found the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel, the arguer deduced that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. However, logic says otherwise.

First and foremost, the definition of mystery novel and literary classic is above all ambiguity. In other words, accepting that the result of the follow-up study is true doesn’t mean denying that the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly. There are quite a little mystery novels that were regarded as literary classic, such as “Le comte de Monte-Cristo”, wrote by Alexandre Dumas, père. This masterwork mainly describe the extraordinary adventure of Edmond Dantès, the hero of this book, who was framed at first, then struggled to survive and manage to revenge at last. The tortuous plot, lively characters, picturesque language and the integrated fabric made this book a literary classic. Other mystery novels like “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, “Adventure of Sherlock Holmes” and “Dracula” are also literary classic too. Thus it is not reasonable for the arguer to get the assertion so arbitrary.

Secondly, the argue fails to prove that the sample citizens in the first study is representative enough to stand for the reading habit for the whole citizens in Leeville. For progressives, though the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly, they may not the most representative samples at all. In fact, many people especially the rich ones are always tend to buy books and seldom borrow them, which may help them to enjoy the fun of reading books without the restrict to return it in time, while the common and poorer citizens especially children who fond in the mystery novels and with no money in pocket may borrow book very often in public library. Against the background that most citizens are prefer reading mystery novel, if most respondents in the first research are rich enough to afford the cost of buying the literary book they liked, they are honestly represent their own reading habits but fail to represent the reading habits of all citizens in Leeville.

Thirdly, without details information, the figures of the books borrowed in public library were not convincing at all. As I mentioned before, the possibility that many citizens prefer buying books instead of borrowing them may lead to the useless of the figures in the follow-up study. Furthermore, for the love of the literary classic, the citizens of Leeville may develop of a habit of collecting the literary classic and read them instead of borrow them. And when it comes to the mystery novels, citizens are not willing to pay for them and will go to the public library to borrow them. What’s more, many libraries may not allowed citizens to borrow most library classic in order to protect those precious books, which may absolutely made the literary classic borrowed much less than mystery novles. For these reasons, more researches are needed to support the assertion.

Watching the argument from the sidelines, I am struck by how much it turns on an assertion that ought to be attested by more convincing evidence. Numerous facts had made it clear that to verifying an assertion, a strict experiment is required. Thus the argument would be more favourable if the arguer involves more researches and consideration.

lxklysUID: 2738043

lxklys修改argue161 by Cynthia
逻辑链：
1.        study1显示L城的人们喜欢看 classics
2.        后来的study2发现人们从图书管借的书中，悬疑小说最多
3.        得出结论study1的responders错误的描述了他们的阅读习惯。
攻击点：
1.        study1 responder是不是representative
2.        图书管借书量能不能代表人们实际的阅读爱好
3.        两个study间隔时间是否过长，人们阅读习惯是否已经发生了改
In this argument, the arguer introduces us two contradictory（其实两者并不存在矛盾关系，我查了一下contradictary的定义：a proposition so related to another that if either of the two is true the other is false and if either is false the other must be true, 所以可以考虑换一个词）results of two studies on the reading habits of Leeville citizens. The first study indicated that literary classics were popular among residents of Leeville, while a follow-up study found mystery novel had the most frequency of checking out of the public libraries. According to these studies, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. This analysis, which seems logical at first glance, suffers from several fallacies.（第一段综述作者的推理逻辑）

In the first place, can the respondents in the first study represent all the citizens in Leeville?  There is no information about how many people were engaged in this study. And no evidence is provided to justify the representability（represent ability） of respondents in this study. It is possible that the study was limited to a few individuals, which can not reach a scientific conclusion. It is equally possible that the study was conducted in a certain area, such as the University of Leeville, thus the majority of respondents were university students or professors, whose reading habits are not representative to all the citizens in Leeville. （这里加一个总结性的词来过渡一下应该会更好）One can not easily accept the result of the study with out further information.

In the second place, granted that the first study is acceptable, the arguer's conclusion that the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits is unconvincing. The follow-up study's conclusion that Leeville citizens borrow mystery novel most frequently from public libraries dose not means they prefer mystery novel rather than literary classics. Perhaps, the public libraries have much less literary classics than mystery novels, thus the citizens borrow more mystery novels for there is no better choice（因为题目中显示的是每个公共图书馆的记录，也就是说不可能每个图书馆的mystery 小说都比literary classic多吧，所以这个理由我觉得不是很有说服力）. Also, the residents who like literary classics might buy the books instead of borrowing from public libraries. The arguer unreasonably assumes that the result of libraries checking out frequency（这个表达有没有改变题目中的原意或者语法上正确不？我也不知道哈，只是感觉有点怪） can represent reading habits of Leeville residents without any direct evidence to justify.

Last but not the least, the arguer does not inform us how long is the interim period between the two studies. It is possible that residents of Leeville changed their reading habits during that period. It is also possible that two studies were conducted in two generations（这个理由很好，我都没有想到！！^_^）, which would obviously reach contradictory results.
To sum up, this argument is unconvincing（考虑换个词吧） for some logical flaws. The arguer should provide more details about the first study to justify its reliability. Moreover, the arguer should give us direct evidence to support the assumption that the checking out frequency of public libraries can represent people's reading habits in Leeville. To better evaluate, we have to know how long the interim period between two studies is. Only through these, can the arguer's conclusion be acceptable.（最后一段提出自己的建议）

总结：
首先在语言的运用上，没有什么大的错误，比较清晰易懂；
当然，如果句式以及词汇的表达能再多样一些就更好了；
在逻辑攻击上，我觉得很到位，层次清楚；
但是个人觉得，第二点的论据给得不是很好哈（文中有标注）；
总的说来，我觉得写得很不错了，继续加油哈

cynthia313UID: 2765794

argue161 by xingfu 修改 by Cynthia
Grounding on the study of some Leeville citizens which shows most of them preferred literary classics as reading material, considering a follow-up study which found the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel, the arguer deduced（deduces） that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. However, logic says otherwise.
First and foremost, the definition(definitions) of mystery novel and literary classic is(are) above all ambiguity. In other words, accepting that the result of the follow-up study is true doesn’t mean denying that the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly. There are quite a little mystery novels that were regarded as literary classic, such as “Le comte de Monte-Cristo”, wrote by Alexandre Dumas, père. This master work mainly describe the extraordinary adventure of Edmond Dantès, the hero of this book, who was framed at first, then struggled to survive and manage to revenge at last. The tortuous plot, lively characters, picturesque language and the integrated fabric made this book a literary classic. Other mystery novels like “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, “Adventure of Sherlock Holmes” and “Dracula” are also literary classic too. Thus it is not reasonable for the arguer to get the assertion so arbitrary.【悬疑小说和文学经典定义有交叉】
Secondly, the argue fails to prove that the sample citizens in the first study is representative enough to stand for the reading habit for the whole citizens in Leeville. For progressives, though the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly, they may not the most representative samples at all. In fact, many people especially the rich ones are always tend to buy books and seldom borrow them, which may help them to enjoy the fun of reading books without the restrict to return it in time, while the common and poorer citizens especially children who fond in the mystery novels and with no money in pocket may borrow book very often in public library. Against the background that most citizens are prefer reading mystery novel, if most respondents in the first research are rich enough to afford the cost of buying the literary book（books）they liked, they are honestly represent their own reading habits but fail to represent the reading habits of all citizens in Leeville.【sample代表性】
Thirdly, without details information, the figures of the books borrowed in public library were not convincing at all. As I mentioned before, the possibility that many citizens prefer buying books instead of borrowing them may lead to the useless of the figures in the follow-up study. Furthermore, for the love of the literary classic, the citizens of Leeville may develop of a habit of collecting the literary classic and read them instead of borrow them. And when it comes to the mystery novels, citizens are not willing to pay for them and will go to the public library to borrow them. What’s more, many libraries may not allowed citizens to borrow most library classic in order to protect those precious books, which may absolutely made the literary classic borrowed much less than mystery novles. For these reasons, more researches are needed to support the assertion.【借书量不能说明阅读喜好】
Watching the argument from the sidelines, I am struck by how much it turns on an assertion that ought to be attested by more convincing evidence. Numerous facts had made it clear that to verifying an assertion, a strict experiment is required. Thus the argument would be more favourable if the arguer involves more researches and consideration.
写得很好啊，除了有几个小的语法问题，而且第一个攻击点里面用了好多书名，好强大~第二个攻击点和第三个攻击点感觉有交叉，可以把思路再理清楚点哦~~总的来说没什么大问题，很好很强大！加油加油~~

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

argue161 修改toywang梦梦采访者
说古典文学

借阅记录
神秘小说
何以推出后者正确？

argu 161

Given to these(感觉一开头什么都没写就用these还是不太好？) two surveys, the arguer concludes that respondents who preferred literary classical reading material are misrepresented their reading habits only contract with(应该是contrast的吧~contrast貌似也不是这样用的~) the type of book which most frequently checked out. Despite of the chosen(chosing吧?说实话整句话的意思我懂了~逻辑和表达没怎么懂哈~) which one is correct, as to the two surveys only, there are exit many flaws. If one need to draw a fixed result by comparison, only have same researchers are not enough,(这啥意思呀?) there still many data do not have comparability.

To begin with, the first survey conducted by the university of Leeville seems reliable owing to the respondents have no motivation to hide their preference. And the second survey is the(a) process of collect(collecting) the data from public libraries that what kind of book is most frequently checked out.(这句话建议改成data of the very kind of book which is most frequently checked out from public libraries.) The arguer negative the former one and regard the later do not has any reason.(这句话要么把后面改成without any reason，
要么在前面加个it seems no reason for the arguer to…) The amount of respondents is limited, and it must be in some specific fields which lead to the limitation of the survey.(后半句是什么意思?)Even if they cannot represent the preference of all the(the entire) citizen in Leeville, they can represent themselves at least. What’s more, the relationship between classic literary and mystery novel cannot classification(be classified) clearly, these two kind of literary may have something in common. According to this degree, the conclusion is more confused.

被访者没有理由不诚实的回答?这个攻击点好奇怪的说~而且整段给我的感觉是TS不明确不突出,表达不顺畅,说理不充分~~~(为了进步~原谅俺拍文重哈)

What logical flaw come(s) next is that the arguer regard(ing) that the record of checked out book can exactly reflect citizens’ preference. However, does that really make sense? Firstly, if people are fond of classic literary they can buy(may prefer buying) these book(s) even if they could borrow from public libraries, yet, this sort of reading channel was not taking into consideration.(梦梦你需要注意下表达了~) Hence, the data come from libraries reflect the habit of citizens who live near these libraries, so it also cannot represent the citizens’ reading habit in Leeville which is a place need a extensive survey including different sorts of data.

我觉得后面的理由不是很充分.题中说了是这个城市各大公共图书馆,也就是说明了它取样还是挺广泛挺充分的.如果照你说的只是反应了图书馆附近的居民的阅读偏好的话,他取了每个图书馆的数据,那就差不多反应了全城居民的阅读偏好了. 而且你这段说了一个firstly,那你的secondly在哪里呢?连接词和表递进关系的词是要按照严谨的逻辑顺序来使用的~
还有一个问题就是我觉得你的表达有待加强,因为我们都写了这篇ARGU,所以我理解你要表达的意思,但是其实你的语言并没有很好的把你的意思表达出来,希望梦梦可以再看看,思考下~.

In the end, after the discussions of flaws exist in the two survey(s), the conclusion is not serious(可以这样用?) for the reason that it was not through a careful and preciseness(precise) way to check which is right on earth.(表达有问题~) When there raise two different result after survey, the first thing one need to consider is not to choose but to think over is some specific parameter were wrong or totally changed. In these two have the problem that people who take as respondents are not the same and have regional diversity. (表达有问题~)So the conclusion does not have any practical effectiveness(用sense更好) based on an arbitrary decision.

To sum up, if the arguer want to find out the real reading preference of Leeville, the sample of people should be reliable and the data should not only take public libraries but also from bookstores and even from internet with a wide process to the materials they want to get. And after a reliable the selection of the result still need to be careful.

感觉最后一段说的一些话可以放到前面的论证里去,而且这几句话才显得说理比较充分.
最后建议下次还是把逻辑链摆出来~

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

修改argumen 161  by eleven

才写了425 word...

逻辑链：
1.        study1中调查的l城的人显示自己喜欢看 classics
2.        Study显示人们从图书管借出的悬疑小说最多
3.        得出结论study1的responders故意错误的描述他们的阅读倾向。
攻击点：
1.  没有界定mystery novel和classic。像百年孤独，德古拉传奇这样的书既是mystery novel 又是famous classic  
2.       调查样本存在漏洞。
没说两个调查中的respondents的关系。可能参加第一个调查的压根就没去过图书馆。比如更富裕的人他们就倾向于自己买书而非到图书馆借书。
3.       用图书馆的借出书数量作为衡量人们阅读习惯的指标不具有说服性。有可能是人们倾向于收藏名著，而mystery novel却到图书馆借。没有给出图书馆的相关信息，有可能是图书馆的classic不让外借，或classic存书量太少。


This argument is underpinned by two separated surveys that conducted by the university of Leeville. The first one surveys a group of people that they responded(表达有问题~) they prefer literary classics as reading material. Another study showed that the hottest checked out books from the public library in Leesville is mystery novel. Then(这里用thus,hence等表结果的连词比较好~) the author concluded that those respondents in the first survey untruthfully depicted their reading habbits(habits). In my point of view, there are three obvious ambiguities in the portrait of both studies that the conclusion was wrong(换成类似that result in the uncertainty of the conclusion的表达更好,这二者的区别感觉到了不?).

To begin with, the author does not analyze to what extent the literary classics and mystery novels mentioned in the argument
overlap(has overlapped). For example, the famous mystery novel such as One Hundred Years of Solitude (要加“”吧?) and the Legend of Dracula occupy significant positions in the literary arena. If respondents prefer this kind of books and regard them as classics while the conductor(这是指的Surveyor么?) merely attributed those books into mystery novel, the result of both surveys are meaningless.
觉得字数少的话,可以选一本书,用一句话概括一下其故事梗概(也可以不要),说明一下其被归为literary的原因。俺就是这么写的~字数一下就飚上去了~嘿嘿

Secondly, in spite of the definition of book(literary classic这种小懒不偷也罢哈~), the arguments does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. The author failed to give us any indication about how many and what kind of citizens (加个had) responded to(去掉,加个to就不是
回答
的意思了) the surveys, and what relationship between the respondents of two separated surveys. We can’t exclude the possibility that those people who answered the first survey didn’t in favor of borrowing books from library. For example, richer people primary buy their preferable literary classics as reading material instead of borrowing them from public library. Thus the representativeness of the results is open to doubt.
说理不够充分.考虑再怎么补充下

Thirdly, the frequency of certain type of book being checked out from the public libraries is not a good indication of what kind of reading material do citizens prefer. The differences in the survey results could merely because people tend to collect classics and borrow mystery books in library. Another possibility is that the Leesville public library has insufficient resource of literary classics while the availability of mystery novels is abundant. And(连词用错了，应该用表递进的moreover等词), maybe because classic are valuable that library regulate no checking(建议不要写no checking，写limit会更好) out service of classics, readers are only allowed to appreciate classics inside the library. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

In conclusion, the arguer jumping to a conclusion in a rush (excellent!) without depicting detailed and rational supporting surveys as empirical evidence. To strengthen the argument, the author has to research more in order to eliminate the other possibilities that I mentioned before.

确实进步了很多哦~~!真是很明显的说啊~
问题不大~字数确实差了点~不过只要把问题解决了字数就上去了~
好的表达也很多~赞!

cynthia313UID: 2765794

argue7 by Cynthia
In this editorial, the author predicts that citizens of Clearview would vote for Ann Green-- a member of Good Earth Coalition, rather than Frank Braun-- a member of Clearview town council, since the former will solve the environmental problems in Clearview, while the latter does not protect the environment as a member of council. This prediction seems logical at first glance, however, is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the increasing air pollution level is due to the town council's decisions. The arguer fails to rule out other factors might be responsible for the worse environment. It is possible that the council do not have the rights to decide the construction of factories in Clearview. It is equally possible that the factories which the council permitted are all environmental friendly, the air pollution might caused by the neighbor town's factory. Without further information, one can not easily accept the assumption that the Clearview town council should be blamed for the environment pollution.

In the second place, granted that it is council's decisions that caused the environment of Clearview getting bad, we are still unclear about Frank Braun's suggestions. Perhaps, he is against the factories' constructions which lead to environmental problems, however, he might not be the majority, who decide the final decisions. It is obviously that the council's decisions do not represent Frank Braun's ideas.

Last but not the least,  the mere fact that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition does not means that he have the willing and the ability to deal with the environment problems. It is possible that Ann Green is just satisfied with the environment of Clearview, and would take no methods to improve it. It is equally possible that he could just notice the problems, but have no ability to solve it. Thus, the assumption that Ann Green would take methods to solve environmental problems in Clearview is groundless.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the decreasing level of environment was directly caused by the town council's decisions, which could also represent Frank Braun's suggestions. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidence to justify that Ann Green does have the willing and the ability to deal with the environmental problems in Clearview. Without such information to justify the correctness of this editorial, the citizens in Clearview should think twice before election.

elevenkarUID: 2791267

第八次作业   ARGUMENT 161
By xingfu，修改by eleven

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者逻辑链
1． study1显示L城的人们喜欢看 classics
2．后来的study2发现人们从图书管借的书中，悬疑小说最多
3．得出结论study1的responders错误的描述了他们的阅读习惯。
攻击点：
1.  没有界定mystery novel和classic。有些书既是mystery novel 又是famous classic  
2．第一个实验的回答者不能代表所有人的阅读喜好。可能参加第一个调查的压根就没去过图书馆。比如更富裕的人他们就倾向于自己买书而非到图书馆借书。
3．用图书馆的借出书数量作为衡量人们阅读习惯的指标不具有说服性。有可能是人们倾向于收藏名著.而mystery novel却到图书馆借。没有给出图书馆的相关信息，有可能是图书馆的classic不让外借。
（哈哈，xingfu美女 咱咋想得那是一摸一样啊 这就是猿粪啊）
经过昨晚和上午的奋斗，终于把名报上了~  意外的睡了一下午~所以写的很晚~见谅见谅~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding on（孩子，其实可以考虑在前期的时候多试试几种不同的开头方法哦！ 666斑竹有个专门讨论不同开头方法的帖子，我不会使用搜索~你搜下在argument专项突破里） the study of some Leeville citizens which shows most of them preferred literary classics as reading material, considering a follow-up study which found the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel, the arguer deduced that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. However, logic says otherwise.（这句话是否确定？）
总结本段逻辑：以grounding on 第一个study+considering第二个study——》the author deduced结果。在描述各自的study时对原题的重复有点多，建议替换词。

First and foremost（恩，比俺的万年不变firstly好多啦！）, the definition of mystery novel and literary classic is above all ambiguity（be above是不受到。。。的意思，那么你的这句化的翻译就是：神秘小说和经典文学的界定没有模糊。修改你的写法成：the definition of mystery novel and literary classic haven’t been clearly clarified by the author.或者：the author’s definition of mystery novel and literary classic is ambiguous.）. In other words, accepting that(我觉得这个that要去掉)the result of the follow-up study is true doesn’t mean denying that the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly. （你写的没有错啦为了句式对称好看，我把后面的半部分也改成了v-ing+名词词组带从句的样式：denying the residents’ expression in the first study that they like the very kind of book is most honestly.）There are quite a little（？？？是不是lot。。。） mystery novels that were regarded as literary classic, such as “Le comte de Monte-Cristo”, wrote by Alexandre Dumas, père. This masterwork mainly describe the extraordinary adventure of Edmond Dantès, the hero of this book, who was framed at first, then struggled to survive and manage to revenge at last. The tortuous plot, lively characters, picturesque language and the integrated fabric made this book a literary classic. （这样让字数上去确实是个好办法，哈哈聪明的xingfu哈）Other mystery novels like “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, “Adventure of Sherlock Holmes” and “Dracula” are also literary classic（,） too.
Thus it is not reasonable for the arguer to get the assertion so arbitrary.(学啦)

Secondly, the argue （arguer吧。。。）fails to prove that the sample citizens in the first study is representative enough to stand for the reading habit for the whole citizens in Leeville.（讨论一下这句话。你说的是sample citizens不能代表reading habit for the whole citizens in Leeville.。其实应该是 the reading habit of the sample citizen 不能代表the reading habit for the whole citizens in Leeville.
这是我最近改文中与遇到的最经常的错误。就是连接词两边的句子的对象不对应。特此提醒！也要提醒自己啦）
For progressives（啥意思~）, though the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly（成分缺乏性语病 试着修改，仅代表个人意见：though the residents in the first study who expressed the very kind of book they like is at their most honesty）, they may not the most representative samples at all. In fact, many people especially the rich ones are always tend to（用了are 应该tend就要改时态吧）buy books and seldom borrow them, which may help them to enjoy the fun of reading books without the restrict to return it in time（你的restrict 前面加了 the，说明你把restrict当名词看，那么后面加to it in time，又是把restrict当动词看。所以有两种修改方法：1 without the restriction of returning books in time, 2 without restricting to returning them in time. 后面一种方法的改动更少，但是前一种方法貌似更地道）, while the common and poorer citizens especially children who fond in（拼写错误，你好像是要表达很喜欢的意思吧~ who is in favor of） the mystery novels and with no money in pocket may borrow book(books) very often in public library. （To）Against the background that most citizens are prefer(are more preferable in/ prefer in，are 和 prefer两个动词重叠) reading mystery novel, if most respondents in the first research are rich enough to afford the cost(costs) of buying the literary book they liked(like), they are honestly represent their own reading habits but fail to represent the reading habits of all citizens in Leeville.

Thirdly, without details information, the figures of the books borrowed in public library were not convincing at all.（我站在一个阅读者的角度看完这一句话，有以下几个问题：figures of books，是什么figures？可能作为摆观点的主旨句，详细一点修饰一下figures比较好） As I mentioned before, the possibility that many citizens prefer buying books instead of borrowing them may lead to the useless of the figures in the follow-up study. Furthermore, for the love of the literary classic, the citizens of Leeville may develop of（去掉） a habit of collecting the literary classic and read（reading） them instead of borrow（borrowing） them. And when it comes to the mystery novels, citizens are not willing（unwilling） to pay for them and will （would rather）go to the public library to borrow them. What’s more, many libraries may not allowed （allow）citizens to borrow most library classic in order to protect those precious books, which may absolutely made the literary classic borrowed（be borrowed） much less than mystery novels. For these reasons, more researches are needed to support the assertion.

Watching the argument from the sidelines, I am struck by how much it turns on an assertion that ought to be attested by more convincing evidence. Numerous facts had made it clear that to verifying an assertion, a strict experiment is required. Thus the argument would be more favorable if the arguer involves more researches 。



总结一下修改中认识到的xingfu经常犯的错误
1连接词两边的句子的对象不对应。
文中错句：fails to prove that the sample citizens in the first study is representative enough to stand for the reading habit for the whole citizens in Leeville.
2 时态有时不注意
文中错误：are always tend to，may not allowed，are prefer，
3 碰到长句，成分缺乏
文中错误：though the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly，
which may absolutely made the literary classic borrowed（be borrowed） much less than mystery novels.
4 名词动词用法混淆
without the restrict to return it in time
改了整整俩小时。。。不停地查语法书
希望修改的都是正确的~ 不过作为一只大大的语法菜鸟，发现修改你的文章并且在结尾总结你的常犯错误，对我的提高很大。不可避免的。。。这也是我的常犯错误，我是有过之而无不及啊！
希望我辛勤查语法书的努力能为你的进步带来帮助~ 一起加油加油！


补编：
经过和xingfu的讨论 有以下地方不清楚：
1 这是xingfu的原句：For progressives，though the residents in the first study expressed the very kind of book they like most honestly（我觉得这个honestly不能放后面，应该放在expressed的前面。如果要放后面，应该按照如下写法：）

though the residents in the first study who expressed the very kind of book they like is at their most honesty）
但是这是我不确定的。
希望这里众bullmen关注下，集思广益！


2 另外有个倒数第二段第一句话我们讨论了一个双方都同意的改法
Thirdly, without details information, the figur， which shows the frequency of certain type of book being checked out from the public libraries， were not convincing at all。

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

1．
污染与病人数量无关
2．
政府不一定没有保护环境，即使最终政策没有保护，也不代表F人没有保护
3．
缺乏AG与其他候选人的比较。


TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - The following appearedin a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.

"In the next mayoral election,residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the GoodEarth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview towncouncil, because the current members are not protecting our environment. Forexample, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled,air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, theenvironmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."
WORDS: 555
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-5-8 12:52:36

Grounding on the fact that the number offactories and air pollution, which is responsible for the respiratory illness,have increased during the past years, the author, synthesizing the fact thatFrank Braun is a member of the town council, comes to his conclusion that FrankBraun does little to help the protection of environment and therefore Ann Greenshould be elected as the mayor in order to solved the environmental problem.However, the argument relies firmly on several unjustified assumptions which goas follows.

Firstly, the increasing air pollution whichare not possibly released by the newly built factories is little indicationthat rise in the patients with respiratory illness is attributable to the airpollution. Since the author fails to provide more information about patientstreated by local hospital, it is just as likely that increase in the number ofmale residents, who have a habit of smoking, may also lead to the augment inthe number of patient with respiratory illness. Moreover, it is also possiblethat most patients with respiratory illness are not local people, in which casethey prefer Clearview as a good place, for doctors in local hospital are goodat treating with respiratory disease, to treat their disease. Thus, eitherscenario, if true, would reasonable enough to weaken the causal relationshipbetween the increase in the number of patient and the increasing level ofpollution.

Secondly, even I grant that air pollutionin Clearview is so serious that it endangers the health of local residents; theauthor offers no evidence that the current member of council, including Frank,contributed no effort to the protection of the environment. Lacking evidencethat decisions made by town council served to the air pollution in Clearview,it is entirely possible that lots of factories was built in a town nearby andair pollution in Clearview are caused by air pollution in other town. For thatmatter, town council may leave no pains protecting the environment, however,they failed. Moreover, even I concede that policies made by town council areresponsible for the air pollution; it is still possible that Mr. Frank wereagainst these policies. Since the decisions are made based on the principle ofdemocracy, other members voted for those policies while Mr. Frank against them.Thus, without giving out more detail information about Mr. Frank, the authorcannot convince me of the basis of the conclusion that Mr. Frank did little toprotect the environment, let alone about electing Mr. Green.

Thirdly, Mr. Green, even we assume that Mr.Frank is responsible for the air pollution in Clearview, may not be the bestchoice for other candidate are not mentioned. Lacking comparison with othercandidate, it is not presumptuous to assume that some other candidate have theexperience of solving environmental problem in other town while Ann Green, whois only a member of the Good Earth Coalition, made no prominent contribution tothe protection of the environment. Thus, other candidate is more qualified forthe post in order to solve the environmental problem.

In sum, the argument is lucid, however, notconvincing. Thus, the author, in order to strengthen his ratiocination, mustcites more evidence to corroborate the conclusion that current member,including Mr. Frank, did little to protect the environment. And comparison withother candidates is also needed.

elevenkarUID: 2791267

argument7 by eleven    553 words     36minutes

作者逻辑：
现执政党没有保护好环境+建议被选者可以保护好环境——》应该选建议被选者

攻击：
1呼吸道病人增多，不能推出示因为更差的环境导致。工厂数量增加，也不能推出环境就会变差
2就算我承认确实更差的环境条件，工厂数量增加，呼吸道病人增多，空气质量变差不代表是fb的原因
3就算是FB的原因：作者没有提供论据证明如果我们选了AG环境问题就会被解决。就算我承认AG可以解决环境问题，也不一定要选他，选谁的影响因素是多样的。

In the letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper, the author suggests citizenries in Clearview vote for Ann Green instead of voting for Frank Braun who is the current mayor.In order to underpin his suggestion, firstly, the author gives the evidence such as during the past year the number of factories has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses to demonstrate that the current members are not protecting our environment. Then, the author gives an assumption that if Ann Green is elected, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved. To be frankly, there are many flaws in the author’s reasoning progress, and now I analyze it as flow.

To begin with, the evidences given by the author cannot causally prove that current members of Clearview haven’t protecting the environment well. Firstly, the argument assumes unfairly that last year's increase in the number of patients reporting respiratory problems indicates worsening environmental prob lems in Clearview. We can’t exclude the possibility that the weather in Clearview this year was adverse that made more patients with respiratory illnesses. Similarly, since the technology and science are amazing today, the doubled number of factories can well organize their emission of waste material, which means that the number of factories increased does not equal to sever environmental pollution. Thus the accution of FB is open to doubt.

More progressively, even I admit the worsening environmental circumstances in Clearview , it is unfairly to assumes that this problem is imputed to the city council—FB’s decision. As we all know, the applying policies in a town are not definitely decided by mayoral himself who is a member of a town council. There is the possibility that FB have tried his best to restrain the speed of opening new factories’ in order to protect the environment of town Clearview, but the town council finally pressed him to abandon under the lure of economic benefit. These possibilities further weaken the persuasion that recidents in Clearview should not elect FB this year because he badly addressed the environmental problem at his last term of service.

State or say much further, even if FB’s decision is the basic reason of environmental contamination, the author provides no firm evidence that electing Green is necessary to solve those problems. And, it is rush to vote AG even if he can address the problem. Both our common knowledge and common sense tell us that here is much elementary deciding whether a resident should vote for a candidate or not, such as what is the candidate’s tax policy towards residents, how many money he will allocate for education and health care every year, and etc..

In summary, the author simply makes groundless suggestion for voting AG and unreasonable accusations for FB without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that worsening environmental circumstances in Clearview is due to the city council—FB’s decision. The author should have also not only provided supporting details that show that elect  Green is necessary to solve environmental problems but also offered another kinds of political devises towards heated concerning. Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

eleven argument 修改版
详情下载附件，掉色让我很不爽

toywangUID: 2700880

1）
工厂两倍， 空气坏，患呼吸道病人增多====》council 不保护环境===》F不保护环境
2）
AG保护环境===》环境问题能解决

逼自己限时了一次 65minutes  479词，后面来不及了~~~


Grounding on the letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper, the author suggests people to vote for Ann Green for the reason that Frank Braun do harm to the environment. However, the author regards Frank Braun as a destroyer for that the number of factories and people of respiratory illness are increased at the same time. What’s more, the assertion that environment problems in Clearview will be solved when Ann Green was elected as mayor. There are exist several logical flaws in this letter.

To start with, when the number of factories in Clearview was doubled, it cannot indicate that it will do harm to the local environment. As we all know, more factories can balloon the local economic level and provide more job opportunities which is a strong action by current council. The author has no reason to perorate more factories pollute the environment. As we all know, the concept that to development without any consideration of environment has already been discard, and entrepreneurs even devoted more money to solve the pollution made by factories. In addition, there existed some factories are hand making factories which has nothing connection with chemical pollution. Beside the discussion of factory itself, the increase of people who suffer with respiratory illness may just coincide with the multiply of factories. The 25 percent more patients may lack of protection and has low immunizing power in that specific period of time. Therefore, the only concern about environment pollution is unacceptable.

In the next step, the author may consider that even the development of local economic has byproduct that is has some influence to enviroment, it does not essential to blame Frank Braun for this consequences. As a member of the Clearview town council, Frank Braun was not the maker of final decision, and the suggestion of most part of member do not represent his standpoint. Hence, the result of development may out of consideration of most people, and they will pay more attention to this issue from now on. Thus this lesson will have strong impact for the formulation of policy later.

What discuss in the last is the assertion that the environment problem will be solved by Ann Green. This decision was not persuade enough for that outcome may not in accordance with you desire, there still exist many different voices in council even if Ann Green is in favor of the protection. What’s more, the position of Ann Green is only a member of the GoodEarth coalition who may lack of political experience which will arise more problems in power.

After the discussion above, the main flaws are drawn. What still need to deliberated is the specific action to solve the current environment problems and what type of people are fittest for mayor which is a composite person not only concern about environment but the balloon of the level of citizens.

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

第九次作业  ARGUMENT 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者逻辑链:
1．
Clearview过去几年中,工厂数量翻倍
2．
空气污染水平增加
3．
当地医院接受的因呼吸道疾病就诊的病人数量增加了25％
4．
AG是Good Earth Coalition成员
1+2+3→现任政府不保护当地环境,因而不应选市委成员FB而应选AG为市长.
反对观点:
1．
无有力证据表明当地环境恶化全是政府的责任
（1）
增加的工厂可能全是新兴工厂,绿色工厂,完全符合低碳标准,循环使用资源.可能其反而创造了更多税收,使政府有更多资金来改善当地环境.
（2）
当地空气污染水平增加。空气是流动的，全球的污染水平都增加了，政府可能采取了措施，但是无力抵抗全局变化的水平。正如经济危机中，只要一个国家的经济有对外开放，不管其怎样努力减少受经济危机的波及，其多少会受到影响，但是你不能说他没有努力去避免受波及。更有可能是当地处于某一风的下风坡，其上游的城市环保力度不佳，导致其城市的空气受污染。正如一条河流的上游的水被污染了，下游再怎样保护水源，其留下来的水已经被污染了。
（3）
本身呼吸道病人增多可能不是因为空气污染的原因，比如可能改地是老龄化社会，过去几年有呼吸道的疾病的老人增多。就算是空气污染的原因导致的，由于上一段已经写明吗，其也不一定是政府不保护环境的缘故。
2．
就算承认当地环境恶化是现任政府的原因，无有力证据表明FB无改善现状的能力。可能现任市长不保护环境，但没有任何说明FB不保护环境的证据。可能其一直呼吁环境保护，只是位置不高没有号召力。而且其本身身为政府官员，对于政府事务比较了解，更有领导各部门的能力。
3．
无有力证据表明AG有有改善现状的能力。作为环境组织的成员只能表明他对环境很关注，而政府要解决污染问题，除了关心以外还会有大量具体工作要作。比如协调其他部门，比如对工业生产的了解等等，这些都不是出身就必然能具备的素质。论断没有提供该候选人的这方面资料。



写了整整一个半小时...肚子都饿瘪了...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounding on the fact that the environment of Clearview do was deteriorated, the arguer deduced that the current government do nothing about protecting the local environment, and suggest residents of Clearview voting for a member of the Good Earth Coalition as the new mayor rather than voting for a member of the Clearview town coalition. However, logic says otherwise.

First and foremost, it is not sensible to regard the examples in the argument above as convincing evidence to support the arguer’s assertion, each of those examples deserve serious consideration for their logic flaws.
Firstly, the figure, which shows that the number of factories in Clearview doubled in the past years, may have no thing to do with the environmental deterioration in Clearview. We are allowed to boldly imagine that most of the new factories are not heavy industry, and they do laid emphasis on protecting environment, obeying the restriction of polluting, recycling their productive materials, what ‘s more, operating at the request of low carbon. Furthermore, they may actually push the work of protecting environment rather than hinder it. With a outstanding revenue, more newborn factories just means more taxes of government, that is to say, more funds to protect the local environment. Altogether, the ballooned factories didn’t harm the environment at all but protect it indeed.
Secondly, the increase of the air pollution level may not result from the incompetent government. As a matter of fact, the air pollution level of the whole world has increased for the past years, which means Clearview can do nothing to resist the air pollution brought by the world as a whole. We may understand this point well with the case of the global economic crisis. As long as a country opened its economy, no matter how hard its government tried to avoid the severe effects brought by the global slump, it will absolutely be involved in more or less. Then, can we say the government does nothing about getting away from the financial crisis? The answer is definitely no. (我也不知道这儿到底应该是答no还是yes~~~从来搞不清这个语法点~)In addition, considering that the air is floating all the time, the air of Clearview at this moment may be the air of a place thousands miles away for the last hour. If the wind direction is fixed all the year around, Clearview may become the victim of the air pollution in other places. Just as the following case, if the water of the upper river is polluted, the water of the lower river will be undoubtedly polluted. Hence, we need more detail to verify the casual relationship with the increased air pollution level with government’s incompetence.
Thirdly, there is no proof to attest that the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses are the victims of the air pollution. An area with an aging population may also have more patients with respiratory illnesses, for older’s poor health condition, and a new planted flower which may cause allergy to pollen will also lead to respiratory illnesses. Moreover, if the environmental pollution was not the fault of current government, just as I explained before, the increased patients also can’t be a good excuse to blame the local government.
Besides, granting that it do was the government’s fault to cause the environmental deterioration, we are not reason enough to deduce that Ann Green are capable to become the mayor rather than Frank Braun does. Being a member of the Good Earth Coalition just indicated that Ann Green was concerning about the environment, but that virtue can’t promise that she is competent enough to be the mayor. However, being a mayor is more a thing of becoming a generalist rather specialist, which requiring a most important characteristics, leadership. You should be familiar with the process within the government, coordinate the entire department to do one certain thing, assure everything is in order. Accordingly, Ann Green may not competent enough. And with no proof to indicate that Frank Braun pay little attention about protecting environment, there lies a possibility that he do tried hard to improve the environment but not powerful enough to realize his aspiration, and once he become the mayor, he will lay more emphasis on environment protection, thus we shouldn’t refuse Frank Braun so arbitrary.

Watching the argument from the sidelines, I am struck by how much it turns on an assertion that ought to be attested by more convincing evidence. Numerous facts had made it clear that to verifying an assertion, a strict experiment is required. Thus the argument would be more favourable if the arguer involves more researches and consideration.