求拍！第一篇argument225

信步蠹蛾UID: 2760227

第一次写，没限时，大概写了50多分钟，字数590，感觉很崩溃！

还有3周就考了，偶英语基础又西撇，灰常危机！

求教如何在半小时内用350字左右找够茬又论述充分！


The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be a worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year has doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is reelected. In addition, Ms. Riedeburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here, thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at Ms. Riedeburg's record can tell that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor."



In this letter, the author cites the following facts to support his/her argument: (1)during R’s three years in office, crime has decreased while job opportunities has increased as well as the number of people moving to the state; (2)R has promised to keep big companies in the state, thereby providing jobs for new residents. On the basis of these facts, the author recommends that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor. Unfortunately, I find this argument is not well-reasoned and it suffers from several critical flaws that I will explain below.

First of all, the author assumes that R’s leadership was the unique or main reason for those developments. In fact, many other possible factors might contribute more to those trends than R’s leadership. For example, the decreased crime is possibly attributed to the stricter punishment to crime, or the higher morality and education level of the new residents, both of them were out of R’s control. In addition, perhaps R also was not responsible for the increased number of employment because other possible factor like and an overall economic boom among all states is not accounted by the author. Similarly, the increased number of immigrants could not be attributed to R’s policies and actions as the author provides no information about the true reason why these people chosen to live in the state. There are myriad more direct motives, instead of R’s government, could attract more people to immigrate to the state, such as natural environment or climate. Besides, the author simply considers the increased population as a positive sign for a great development of the state. However, it is entirely possible that undue immigration would result in some unexpectedly negative effect in the state, such as an oversupplied labor pool and the pressure of sources. If either would be the case, and it might be contributed by R’s policies, the author’s argument would be extremely misguiding.

Another problem with this letter is that R’s promise that to keep big companies in order to maintaining the sufficient job opportunities for new residents. Onthe one hand, this is easier said than done, and politician’s promise seems always untrustworthy. Only a promise cannot ensure R would necessarily keep these companies. Even assuming R would keep her words, there is no evidence presented that these companies would plan to employ new residents in fact. Perhaps they even plan to layoff their current staff, let alone to hire new employees. If so, R’s promise would attain nothing to keeping the state’s development and the author’s assertion that R’s reelection would bring a continuous development to the state is unwarranted.

Even if assuming that R would guarantee these positive trends to be maintained, it is not enough to justify that she must be the best-qualified candidate without considering other possible candidates. The author simply rejects to consider other candidates who would probably perform better than R in boosting the state’s sustainable development through not only focusing on the state’s economy but also pay more attention on social advance and environmental protection. In the absence of weighing R against the potential rivals, the assertion that R would be best-qualified is unconvincing.

In sum, due to its myriad weaknesses as discussed above, this article fails to persuade me. Unless the author offer more direct evidence showing it was R’s successful leadership, rather than any other factors, that lead to the state’s development, and only she has the capability to enable the trend to continue, any logical-minded person could not accept the author’s argument.

xiaoyaozi5566UID: 2510336

互改吧，留下自己链接，有付出才有回报哦

zhangx125UID: 2352430

咱俩互改吧，我的是https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1088329-1-1.html

zhangx125UID: 2352430

In this letter, the author cites the following facts to support his/her argument: (1)during R’s three years in office, crime has decreased while job opportunities has increased as well as the number of people moving to the state; (2)R has promised to keep big companies in the state, thereby providing jobs for new residents. On the basis of these facts, the author recommends that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor. Unfortunately, I find this argument is not well-reasoned and it suffers from several critical flaws that I will explain below.
前面的概述部分还可简洁一点，我觉得可以一两个长句搞定，并做一些适当改写。第一段在内容上是无可挑剔的。

First of all, the author assumes that R’s leadership was the unique or main reason for those developments. In fact, many other possible factors might contribute more to those trends than R’s leadership. For example, the decreased crime is possibly attributed to the stricter punishment to crime, or the higher morality and education level of the new residents, both of them were out of R’s control. In addition, perhaps R also was not responsible for the increased number of employment because of other possible factor like and(这个句子不是很懂) an overall economic boom among all states is not accounted by the author. Similarly, the increased number of immigrants could not be attributed to R’s policies and actions as the author provides no information about the true reason why these people chosen to live in the state. There are myriad more direct motives, instead of R’s government, could attract more people to immigrate to the state, such as natural environment or climate. Besides, the author simply considers the increased population as a positive sign for a great development of the state. However, it is entirely possible that undue immigration would result in some unexpectedly negative effect in the state, such as an oversupplied labor pool and the pressure of sources. If either would be the case, and it might be contributed by R’s policies, the author’s argument would be extremely misguiding.
这一段的论述我觉得可以采用让步式。这段开头提到“the author assumes that R’s leadership was the unique or main reason for those developments”，这里你好像已经承认了在R的领导下是有进步的，其实不然。信中提到“crime has decreased”，这个很模糊，下降了多少呢?没有横向比较，不知道其他地方的犯罪情况，说不定她本应该做得更好。工作数量的增加不能等同于就业率的增加，随着人口的增多，就业率可能反而降低；增加的这些岗位适不适合当地人干，说不定全是请的外面的人在做，而当地的失业率还是很高。正如你所说的，人多了不一定是好事，会增加社会的不稳定性，人口的构成（人口统计学demography）也很重要，会不会是因为当地经济搞的不好，房价低，导致很多难民聚集到此。（让步）即使这些都有进步了，再如你那样论述是不是R的功劳。

Another problem with this letter is that R’s promise that to keep big companies in order to maintaining the sufficient job opportunities for new residents. Onthe one hand, this is easier said than done, and politician’s promise seems always untrustworthy. Only a promise cannot ensure R would necessarily keep these companies. Even assuming R would keep her words, there is no evidence presented that these companies would plan to employ new residents in fact. Perhaps they even plan to layoff their current staff, let alone to hire new employees. If so, R’s promise would attain nothing to keeping the state’s development and the author’s assertion that R’s reelection would bring a continuous development to the state is unwarranted.

Even if assuming that R would guarantee these positive trends to be maintained, it is not enough to justify that she must be the best-qualified candidate without considering other possible candidates. The author simply rejects to consider other candidates who would probably perform better than R in boosting the state’s sustainable development through not only focusing on the state’s economy but also pay more attention on social advance and environmental protection. In the absence of weighing R against the potential rivals, the assertion that R would be best-qualified is unconvincing.
以上两段我觉得比我论述得好多了，要学习！！！

In sum, due to its myriad weaknesses as discussed above, this article fails to persuade me. Unless the author offer more direct evidence showing it was R’s successful leadership, rather than any other factors, that lead to the state’s development, and only she has the capability to enable the trend to continue, any logical-minded person could not accept the author’s argument.

信步蠹蛾UID: 2760227

4# zhangx125


可不可以帮偶删掉啰嗦的部分啊，偶感觉30分钟内写590字是不可能的，最好400字以内