求删！argument237+222

信步蠹蛾UID: 2760227

今天写了两篇阿狗都超时得厉害，全部字数550+，30分钟内连攻击部分绝对完不成，求高人删改：1.压到450字内 2.不减速攻击点 3.保持完整性

劳驾再顺便看看这种水平值得了多少分



237
The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper.
"According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here."

In this article, the author cites the following facts to support his/her argument: (1)last year Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate and began offering relocation grants and favorable rates to companies that would move to Dillton; (2) during the last 18 months, two manufacturing companies relocated in Dillton and employed 300 people. On the basis of them the author suggests that Beauville had better adopt the similar incentive policies to encourage private companies to relocate there and could expect an economical development and a decreased unemployment in the city. Unfortunately, I find the speciously well-supported article in fact suffers from several flaws that I will explain below.

Firstly, the author assumes that the two companies moving to Dillton was contributed by the Dillton's incentive policies. However, the mere fact that the relocations happened after the incentive policies carried into effect does not necessarily mean it was these incentives, rather than other unstated reasons like the mild climate, the lower average salary levels, or the developed infrastructures of Dillton, that mainly brought about the relocations of the two businesses. Additionally, a closer scrutiny would reveal that even such a mere fact is actually dubious. The author only tells us that within one year(12 months), Dillton began to adopt those incentives while the relocations happened within 18 months. It is entirely possible that the two companies relocated to Dillton before those policies put into execution. Besides, the author in the last sentence asserts that Dillton's incentives would effect private companies' action, however, this argument fails to inform any information about whether the two relocated companies are private or not. If they are government-owned businesses, they might just comply with the government's economical plan to relocate in that city. If either is the case, the argument would be extremely misleading.

Secondly, even if Dillton's new policies indeed work, the only directly positive effect of the relocations was an employment of 300 people. Yet this effect is likely very inconsequential because the author fails to tell us whether these people who were hired were residents, and we also do not know any information about the whole size of labor pool of Dillton. Therefore, I cannot be convinced such a reduction of employment indicated a significant economic development of Dillton.

Even if Dillton’s new policies actually boosted the city’s economy, the author’s assumption that as long as Beauville adopt the similar policies the city would necessarily repeat the same success. Perhaps the other conditions between the two cities are quite different, which would probably result in a thorough ineffectiveness of these policies. Without considering and comparing the local circumstances between the two, the author’s proposal is rather groundless.

Finally, the author again fails to consider other possible courses of action that might better prompt the city’s economy. For example, to enhance the local labors’ skills and education levels or to complete the business infrastructures probably be proved more effective in improving Beauville’s economy. Without weighing the Dillton’s policies against these potential alternatives, the author cannot allege that Dillton’s policies must be the fastest way to stimulate Beauville’s economy.

In sum, the argument fails to justify the author’s proposal. Unless the author provides direct evidence showing Dillton’s incentives did attain a significant economic success and clear information that similar incentives would have a good chance to repeat its attainments in Beauville, any logical-minded person could not accept such an ill-reasoned argument.



222
The following article appeared in a recent issue of a college newspaper.
"Among all students who graduated from Hooper University over the past five years, more physical science majors than social science majors found permanent jobs within a year of graduation. In a survey of recent Hooper University graduates, most physical science majors said they believed that the prestige of Hooper University's physical science programs helped them significantly in finding a job. In contrast, social science majors who found permanent employment attributed their success to their own personal initiative. Therefore, to ensure that social science majors find permanent jobs, Hooper University should offer additional social science courses and hire several new faculty members who already have national reputations in the social sciences."

In this article, the author suggests that to ensure the social science majors find permanent jobs, Hopper University should offer additional social science courses and hire new faculty who have national reputation in this fields. Unfortunately, I find the author's argument is not well-supported since it suffers from several flaws that I will explain below.

First of all, the author states that over the past five years, more physical science majors who graduated from Hopper University found permanent jobs than social sciences ones within one year of graduation. Then the author hastily implies that the main reason for the phenomenon is the Hopper University's poor reputation in social science. However, there is no direct evidence presented anywhere in this argument that the lower employment of social science graduates is a particular phenomenon rather than an universal trend among all universities. Perhaps over these years, the job market preferred to physical science majors rather than social science ones due to a comparatively increased demand of more technology-type companies. If this is the case and such a trend would continue in the foreseeable further, the author's suggestion would have nothing to do with helping Hopper University's social science graduates to find jobs more quickly since the market demand is out of the university's control.

Second, a recent survey cited by the author shows that most physical science majors attributes their success in job market to the prestige of Hopper University in physical science fields, while social science ones considered that the most important factors that help them find jobs was their personal ability. The first problem with the survey involves that how this survey was conducted, how many graduates actually responded, whether the sample was representative and so on. Since the author fails to inform us any information about these factors that could affect the reliability of the survey, I cannot turn a blind eye to the potential weakness of the survey. In addition, even assuming the results of the survey are reliable I could fairly call into question that whether these graduates' judgment about the primary reason for their success is exact. Perhaps these people simply neglected other contributed factors such as the demand trend of job market as I discussed before. Again, the author cannot reasonably cite this survey as an evidence to support his/her argument.

Finally, even if assuming that all flaws I discussed above will be supported by the author’s further evidence, the author cannot directly jump to his/her proposal on the basis of them. Only offering additional social science courses and hire new faculty who have national reputation in the fields would not serve to attain the university's goal. Perhaps there are other measures would be more effective in helping social science majors to such as some courses that serve to enhance graduates’ resume writing and interview skills, or some job-seeking training programs, etc. Without considering and weighing these other courses of action against the proposed one, the author fails to justify his/her suggestion.

In sum, unless the author could provides direct evidence showing the social science majors’ filatures in finding jobs efficiently can be mainly attributable to the lower reputation of Hooper University in social science fields, and further illustrate that his/her proposal is the only means of improving the situation, any logical-minded person cannot accept such an ill-reasoned argument.