Argument 63（求G友互改）Help~

小付UID: 2773363

The author of this argument claims that more benches need to be provided in Stanley Park (SP) so that it can be as popular as Carlton Park (CP). To support the claim the author points out that video cameras mounted in the SP's parking lots revealed the park's popularity by comparing the average number of visiting cars per day in SP and the number in CP on a typical weekday. The author also cites that CP having amply seating is an obvious difference between the two parks. I find this argument unconvincing for several reasons.

First and foremost, this author provides absolutely no evidence that SP suffered a drop in popularity .In the argument the author provides the statistics that indicate that the number of visitors in SP per day is less than the number in CP on a typical weekday. Although the statistics could partly prove that CP might be popular than SP, however, we all know that to demonstrate the comparison of the average visiting numbers per day between the two parks is actually more convincing and necessary. Lack such comparison, we could not be convinced that SP suffered a drop in popularity if the number of visitors per day in SP is more than CP and the number of visitors on typical weekdays in SP is more than CP.

Secondly, even assuming that the average number of cars per day in CP are more than SP, in order to accept the author's conclusion that SP is less popular than before, we must assume that the numbers of visitors who visit the two parks in other ways such as by walking and by bike are the same. However, the author provides no evidence that it is the case. It is entirely possible that though the number of visitors who visit by car in CP is more than SP, visitors by walking or by bike in SP are significantly more than CP. It is also possible that some visitors who visit SP park their cars outside the park's parking lots. Without ruling out these possibilities the author cannot convincingly conclude that SP is losing its popularity with the residents.

Thirdly, even if SP actually suffers a drop in popularity, the author unfairly assumes that it is the lack of amply seating that resulted the drop. But we can find no concrete evidence to substantiate the inevitable relationship between the popularity and the seating numbers. Perhaps SP's some sports facilities have broken down and some of its devices needed to be maintained. Or perhaps there are some other entertainment places established nearby so that a part of the residents choose to go there.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must provide the statistics that indicating the number of visitors in CP is more than SP. The author also must provide sufficient evident that SP's drop in popularity is attributable primarily to its lack of amply seating rather than to one or more other factors. In order to better evaluate the claim, I would need more statistics to compare the average visiting number of the two parks per day and on typical weekdays. I would also need to know to what extent the supply of amply seating will increase its popularity.

tyarelUID: 2756223

The author of this argument claims that more benches need to be provided in Stanley Park (SP) so that it can be as popular as Carlton Park (CP). To support the claim the author points out that video cameras mounted in the SP's parking lots revealed the park's popularity by comparing the average number of visiting cars per day in SP and the number in CP on a typical weekday. The author also cites that CP having amply seating is an obvious difference between the two parks. I find this argument unconvincing for several reasons. (个人觉得开头复述得过于详细了，可以稍微再精减一下)
First and foremost, this author provides absolutely no evidence (过于绝对了，也许每天停50辆车确实可以反应Sp人数下降，但Arg这里不够细致严谨，可能以前每天只有40辆？可能以前也不过只有55辆？到底是怎么样的下降，以及到底下降了怎么样一个幅度？我个人觉得这个地方是可以充分论述一下的)that SP suffered a drop in popularity .In the argument the author provides the statistics that indicate that the number of visitors in SP per day is less than the number in CP on a typical weekday. Although the statistics could partly prove that CP might be popular than SP, however, (although和however好像不能一起连用的吧？)we all know that to demonstrate the comparison of the average visiting numbers per day between the two parks is actually more convincing and necessary.(we all know的写法让这里显得比较主观了,为什么大家一定就这么认为？我觉得改成反驳Arg作者用weekday与day作比较有漏洞比较好；可能这个城市人们更习惯工作日去公园而不是周末？那么2者同时计入周末数据的话结果是不是就不同了？) Lack(此处应该用lacking或者lack of) such comparison, we could not be convinced that SP suffered a drop in popularity if the number of visitors per day in SP is more than CP and the number of visitors on typical weekdays in SP is more than CP.
Secondly, even assuming that the average number of cars(个人觉得这里还是用number of visitors比较好,毕竟要比较的是游客人数) per day in CP are more than SP, in order to accept the author's conclusion that SP is less popular than before, we must assume that the numbers of visitors who visit the two parks in other ways such as by walking and by bike are the same. However, the author provides no evidence that it is the case. It is entirely possible that though the number of visitors who visit by car in CP is more than SP, visitors (从句中的visitor可以用代词代换掉)by walking or by bike in SP are significantly more than CP. It is also possible that some visitors who visit SP park their cars outside the park's parking lots. Without ruling out these possibilities the author cannot convincingly conclude that SP is losing its popularity with the residents.
Thirdly, even if SP actually suffers a drop in popularity, the author unfairly assumes that it is the lack of amply seating that resulted (result是不及物动词,result in)the drop. But we can find no concrete evidence to substantiate the inevitable relationship (有这个用法嘛？没见过，难以避免的关系？请lz自己再确认一下) between the popularity and the seating numbers. Perhaps SP's some sports facilities (还是改用of的形式比较好吧？`s一般好像是用来表示有生命的物体的“的”的关系，这是我看到的对于’s用法的解释http://www.nmet168.com/Article/200712/587.html)have broken down and some of its devices needed to be maintained. (need就可以了吧？)Or perhaps there are some other entertainment places established nearby so that a part of the residents choose to go there.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must provide the statistics that indicating the number of visitors in CP is more than SP. The author also must provide sufficient evident (evidence) that SP's drop in popularity is attributable primarily to its lack of amply seating rather than to one or more other factors. (2句可以并在一起吧？2遍使用the author must provide显得比较重复了)In order to better evaluate the claim, I would need more statistics to compare the average visiting number of the two parks per day and on typical weekdays. I would also need to know to what extent the supply of amply seating will increase its popularity. (感觉这段最后2句与之前的2句在内容上也是重复了，作业要提供的内容和我需要的内容不是一样的吗？还有，个人认为“由于缺少椅子而游客少”和“增加椅子能增加游客数”也是2个不同的概念，是不同的反驳点)

tyarelUID: 2756223

我也只是开始写1，2偏argument的小菜鸟，修改的地方也不一定全有道理，lz可以看一下然后自己斟酌，如果能帮到lz就好了^_^
另外，请lz帮忙回拍好吗，谢谢了，我也找不到人帮我改文
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... xtra=#pid1774036512

小付UID: 2773363

非常感谢你给我修改作文，非常感激，我们一起互改吧？很高兴遇到你，呵呵
恩，一起加油！明天一定帮你改下作文，今天想早点睡了，呵呵
4# tyarel

小付UID: 2773363

The author of this argument claims that more benches need to be provided in Stanley Park (SP) so that it can be as popular as Carlton Park (CP). To support the claim the author points out that video cameras mounted in the SP's parking lots revealed the park's popularity by comparing the average number of visiting cars per day in SP and the number in CP on a typical weekday. The author also cites that CP having amply seating is an obvious difference between the two parks. I find this argument unconvincing for several reasons. (个人觉得开头复述得过于详细了，可以稍微再精减一下)

First and foremost, this author provides no clear evidence that SP suffered a drop in popularity .In the argument the author provides the statistics that indicate that the number of visitors in SP per day is less than the number in CP on a typical weekday. Although the statistics could partly prove that CP might be popular than SP, to demonstrate the comparison of the average visiting numbers per day between the two parks is actually more convincing and necessary. Lacking such comparison, we could not be convinced that SP suffered a drop in popularity if the number of visitors per day in SP is more than CP and the number of visitors on typical weekdays in SP is more than CP. Besides, the statistic concerning the number of visiting cars is not accurate enough for us to evaluate the actual condition of the popularity of SP. The author only informs us the comparison between the two parks but we do not know the base amount of the visiting cars before last month. So it is entirely possible that the number of visiting car in SP does actually increase. For lack of detailed statistics the author cannot conclude that SP is suffering a drop of popularity.

Secondly, even assuming that the average number of cars per day in CP are more than SP, in order to accept the author's conclusion that SP is less popular than before, we must assume that the numbers of visitors who visit the two parks in other ways such as by walking and by bike are the same. However, the author provides no evidence that it is the case. It is entirely possible that though the number of visitors who visit by car in CP is more than in SP, those by walking or by bike in SP are significantly more than CP. It is also possible that some visitors who visit SP park their cars outside the park's parking lots. Without ruling out these possibilities the author cannot convincingly conclude that SP is losing its popularity with the residents.

Thirdly, even if SP actually suffers a drop in popularity, the author unfairly assumes that it is the lack of amply seating that resulted in the drop. But we can find no concrete evidence to substantiate the causal relationship between the popularity and the seating numbers. Perhaps sports facilities in SP have broken down and some of its devices need maintenance. Or perhaps there are some other entertainment places established nearby so that a part of the residents choose to go there.


In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must provide the statistics that indicating the number of visitors in CP is more than SP. The author also must provide sufficient evidence that SP's drop in popularity is attributable primarily to its lack of amply seating rather than to one or more other factors. In order to better evaluate the claim, I would need more statistics to compare the average visiting number of the two parks per day and on typical weekdays. I would also need to know to what extent the supply of amply seating will increase its popularity.


修改后的，开头我只是想把他的那些事实啊，结论都写出来，不知道怎么精减了。中间我加上了那个没有基数的论点，还有那个第三段开头是应该说是车子的数量比较的，估计你没有理解我那段的意思。呵呵，恩，后面我本来也想论证一下增加椅子的数量不一定会增加游客的论证的，但字数已经远远够了，就没有论证了，所以结尾加了那么一句。恩，应该没问题吧。呵呵，谢谢你！
3# tyarel