ARGUMENT223习作

zzsituUID: 2722415

TOPIC: ARGUMENT223 - The following appeared as an editorial in one of Coleville's city newspapers.
"Even though a high percentage of Coleville City's businesses failed last year, we who live in Coleville City should keep in mind the fact that the Coleville region has attracted a great many new businesses over the last three years. It is well known that new businesses are, on average, much more likely to fail than are long-established ones, so the business failures should not be considered a sign of poor economic health. Indeed, many analysts regard the presence of a significant number of new companies among a region's businesses as a sign of economic health. Thus Coleville City appears to be in good, not poor, economic shape."


The author conclude the fact that Coleville has attracted many new businesses in the last three year and claim that new business are much more likely to fail and statement from anaylysts that the presence of new economies should be considered as a sign of good economy.However several unsure information weaken the argument.

First, the description of the economy of Colevile by the word "fail" is ambiguous.Readers are not sure whether the new business failed to succeed but still exists or they had already dispeared.This is crusical because it affect how persuasive the conclusion is for the author's conclusion depends on the regards of the presence of new companies by analysts.If the author doesn't clearify this ambiguous description, it's hard to lean strong support to the author's conclusion.

Second,the claim that new businesses are easy to fail than long-estabilished one doesn't indicate the failure of business is acceptable. Though new companies are more likely to fail, the number of them is a lot more than that of old long-established companies.Perhaps failure of economy are appearant if almost all the new companies bankrupted.Moreover, the conclusion are based on the unwarrented assumption that the influence of old companies to the city can be ingored.Old and long-termed companies often have greater influence on economy than the new ones.Therefore, without considering the effect of old economyies we cannot better conclude whether the economy is declining or increasing.

Third, the author's conclusion is based on the analysis of many analysts while more detail of the analysts are not provided.Perhaps the analysts are not authoritative enough.Or perhaps this statement of analysts is in a special condition which Colevile may not meets.

In conclusion, more specific information should be provided in order to better demonstrate the author's conclusion:1)the actual number of new economy existing at present;2)the effect of old economies is negligible;3)the reliability of the analysts and whether analysis can apply to Coleville.

小付UID: 2773363

我们互改吧，恩？呵呵，真高兴找到你们，呵呵，我们互相帮助哈，真高兴，我可能改得比较慢，耐心点哈，呵呵，加油！O(∩_∩)O~

zzsituUID: 2722415

2# Bela1229
有issue互改么？

小付UID: 2773363

The author conclude( 单复数还是要注意一下吧,呵呵) the fact (不能说conclude the fact 吧？)that Coleville has attracted many new businesses in the last three year （years）and claim （+s）that new business （+s）are much more likely to fail and statement from anaylysts that the presence of new economies should be considered
（这一句不懂意思了，好像是statement should be considered as a sign了，再仔细看看，换个句式吧，可以断句，但要表达清楚）as a sign of good economy. However several unsure information
（有些并不是information 不确定的问题，你可以改成有很多逻辑的缺陷，several logical flaws ）weaken the argument.
First, the description of the economy of Colevile by the word "fail" is ambiguous. （Fisrt，the author fails to give a clear definition of the “fail” when claims that the economy of Colevile failed last year.）Readers are not sure whether the new business failed to succeed but still exists or they had already dispeared. (Thus we could not evaluate whether these businesses failed to success but still exist or they had already dispeared.) This is crusical (crucial) because it affect (+s) how persuasive the conclusion is for the author's conclusion depends on the regards of the presence of new companies by analysts. If the author doesn't clearify this ambiguous description, it's hard to lean strong support to the author's conclusion. ( Without a clear definition of the “fail”, it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.)
Second, the claim that new businesses are easy to fail than long-estabilished (established) one (+s) doesn't indicate the failure of business is acceptable. Though new companies are more likely to fail, the number of them is a lot more than that of old long-established companies. Perhaps failure of economy are (is) appearant (apparent) if almost all the new companies bankrupted. Moreover, the conclusion are based on the unwarrented (unwarranted) assumption that the influence of old companies to the city can be ingored (ignored). Old and long-termed companies often have greater influence on economy than the new ones. Therefore, without considering the effect of old economy we cannot better conclude whether the economy is declining or increasing. (我知道你想表达的意思是老公司对经济的影响比新公司大，新公司的倒闭对经济影响不大，所以不能确定经济是转好还是转坏。不错的论证。恩，我想到这样一个逻辑错误，就是说题目中所说的failed的businesses不一定是新的啊，他只是说新的容易倒闭，但有可能去年倒闭的都是旧的呢？)
Third, the author's conclusion is based on the analysis of many analysts while more detail of the analysts are not provided. Perhaps the analysts are not authoritative enough. Or perhaps this statement of analysts is in a special condition which Colevile may not meets.（可以拓展一点，字数有点少，呵呵。我觉得还有尽管说新公司容易倒闭是个常理，但也要有证据证明才行啊，对吧？也许这个城市的新公司都很有生命力呢？）
In conclusion, more specific information should be provided in order to better demonstrate the author's conclusion:1)the actual number of new economy existing at present;2)the effect of old economies is negligible;3)the reliability of the analysts and whether analysis can apply to Coleville.
（不仅要写出需要哪些证据要加强说理，还应说明哪些地方应该说明一下以便于更好的评判，就是那些模糊地地方，比如fail的定义。
还有，可以利用word来检查一下拼写的错误和单复数错误，这样自己知道正确的拼写以后多加注意。）

zzsituUID: 2722415

5# 小付
谢谢小付同学的批改！唉，下次还是自己改改再发上来...

小付UID: 2773363

Argument 13
帮忙看看吧？呵呵



In this memo, the chief executive recommends that it is a wise investment to purchase the rights to produce a video game based on “Squrrel Power (SP)”. To support his recommendation the executive cites that Wood of this book has published other best sellers. The executive also points out that they will save the costs by saving money in developing their video games. For several reasons, the evidence offered in support for the recommendation provides little credible support for it.

First, the recommendation relies on the assumption that 'SP', a soon-to-be-published children's book wrote by Wood, will be a best-seller. Since the executive provides no information about this book, though Wood's last three books have been best sellers, it is entirely possible that this new book will go contrarily. Without considering and eliminating this possibility, the executive cannot convincingly conclude based on that Wood published three best sellers that this new book will be popular and therefore the video game based on it will be profitable.

Secondly, the mere fact that the movie based on Wood's first book was highly profitable proves nothing about either his new book will be popular or the video game based on his new book will be profitable as well. Perhaps his new book is not suitable to be adapted to a video game. Or perhaps Wood's books are just suitable to be adapted to produce movies. Under either scenario, the recommendation is unconvincingly.

Thirdly, even though the characters and story line in "SP" are very popular which save them time and costs in developing the video game, this does not necessarily indicate this company will have lower costs. The executive might overlooks other factors that contribute to the increasing cost. For example, the cost of programming will be higher. As it shows in the memo, the cost of the rings is substantial, therefore the price of the video game will surely be high and few people are willing to play it, which will render the company a financial crisis.

Finally, the executive points out that buying the rights will place a economic constraints on their company in the short-term, and the executive provides no information about how they will solve this problem. Considering that the after producing procedures also need more funds, the survival of the company is open to doubt, so it is hard to assess the feasibility of the recommendation.

In conclusion, the executive's recommendation is ill-founded. To strength it the executive must provide clear evidence that Wood's new book will be a best seller and fit to be adapted to a video game. Finally, to better evaluate the recommendation I would need more information about what measures the company will take to solve the financial problem.

zzsituUID: 2722415

7# 小付
In this memo, the chief executive recommends that it is a wise investment to purchase the rights to produce a video game based on “Squrrel Power (SP)”. To support his recommendation the executive cites that Wood of this bookof this book有点多余，建议删之 has published other best sellers. The executive also points out that they will save the costsreduce的同义词：cut,lower,diminish,moderate by saving money in developing their video games. For several reasons, the evidence offered in support for the recommendation provides little credible support for it.两个support for 显得累赘不如，直接把第一个in support for the recommendation 删去，意思更简洁
First, the recommendation relies on the assumption that 'SP', a soon-to-be-published children's book wrote by Wood, will be a best-seller. Since the executive provides no information about this book, though Wood's last three books have been best sellers, it is entirely possible that this new book will go contrarily.go contrarily的表述别扭，但我也找不到好的说法，另外这个句子的结构需要调整,两个状语从句弄在一起有点怪，我认为可以先把主句it is...先放上来，though从句放后边，或者把这句子拆成两个 Without considering and eliminating this possibility, the executive cannot convincingly conclude based on that Wood published three best sellers that this new book will be popular and therefore the video game based on it will be profitable.conclude based on..这个表述不正确，应该是conclude sth ,而用based on来修饰sth，这里不必把所有句子都整合成一个句子，关键是要表达清楚。而且，这里所提到的另一个逻辑错误，既然下一个正文段有讲了，这里就不必提了
Secondly, the mere fact that the movie based on Wood's first book was highly profitable proves nothing about尽量避免这种一棍子打死的论断 either his new book will be popular or the video game based on his new book will be profitable as well这里应该是递进的关系，不应该用either or这种并列结构，还是句子堆的太多，不够清晰的问题. Perhaps his new book is not suitablesuitable 和 adapt to在语义上有点重复 to be adapted to a video game. Or perhaps Wood's books are just suitable to be adapted to加强同义改写 produce movies. Under either scenario, the recommendation is unconvincingly.unconvincing
Thirdly, even though the characters and story line in "SP" are very popular which save them time and costs in developing the video game, this does not necessarily indicate this company will have lower costs.同样的问题 The executive might overlooks other factors that contribute to the increasing cost. For example, the cost of programming will be higher. As it shows in the memo, the cost of the rings is substantial, therefore the price of the video game will surely be high and few people are willing to play it, which will render the company a financial crisis.
Finally, the executive points out that buying the rights will place aan economic constraints on their company in the short-term, and the executive provides no information about how they will solve this problem. Considering that the after producing procedures also need more funds, the survival of the company is open to doubt, so it is hard to assess the feasibility of the recommendation.
In conclusion, the executive's recommendation is ill-founded. To strength it the executive must provide clear evidence that Wood's new book will be a best seller and fit to be adapted to a video game. Finally, to better evaluate the recommendation I would need more information about what measures the company will take to solve the financial problem.

跟我一样，在语言方面存在比较大的问题。就是语言不够精炼准确，同义改写能力需要加强。加油写，多阅读，相信就会慢慢加强！

小付UID: 2773363

恩，我明白了。其实我在写的时候我就感觉我用的词都是重复的，但又想不到好的词来代替，以后我会勤快点去查词典，扩大词汇量。恩，谢谢你！
中间那个  adapted to 和 suitable 不重复的。 这里adapted  是改编的意思，呵呵
谢谢你哦！呵呵
8# zzsitu

小付UID: 2773363

改后...
In this memo, the chief executive recommends that it is a wise investment to purchase the rights to produce a video game based on “Squrrel Power (SP)”. To support his recommendation the executive cites that the author of this book, Wood, has published other best sellers. The executive also points out that they will cut the costs by saving money in developing their video games. For several reasons, the evidence offered provides little credible support for it.

First, the recommendation relies on the assumption that 'SP', a soon-to-be-published children's book wrote by Wood, will be a best-seller. Since the executive provides no information about this book, it is entirely possible that the sale of this new book turns out not to be satisfactory.
Without considering and eliminating this possibility, the executive cannot convincingly conclude that this new book will be popular based on that Wood published three best sellers, let alone the video game made out of it will be profitable.

Secondly, the mere fact that the movie based on Wood's first book was highly profitable proves little about either his new book will be fit to be rearranged to a video game or the video game will be profitable as well. Perhaps Wood's books are just suitable to be developed into movies but his new book cannot be adapted to a video game well. If it is the case, the recommendation is unconvincing.

Thirdly, even though the characters and story line in "SP" are very popular which save them time and diminish costs in developing the video game, this does not necessarily indicate this company will have lower costs. The executive might overlooks other factors that contribute to the increasing cost. For example, the cost of programming and advertising will be higher. As it shows in the memo, the cost of the rights is substantial, therefore the price of the video game will surely be high and few people are willing to play it, which will render the company a financial crisis.

Finally, the executive points out that buying the rights will place economic constraints on their company in the short-term, and the executive provides no information about how they will solve this problem. Considering that the after producing procedures also need more funds, the survival of the company is open to doubt, so it is hard to assess the feasibility of the recommendation.

In conclusion, the executive's recommendation is ill-founded. To strength it the executive must provide clear evidence that Wood's new book will be a best seller and fit to be developed into a video game. Finally, to better evaluate the recommendation I would need more information about what measures the company will take to solve the financial problem.

小付UID: 2773363

The author cites a recent research of the language and legends of the Innu to get to the conclusion that there might be grizzly bears in Labrador, and to demonstrate the validity of the experience of meeting a grizzly bear. By careful observation, I found several logic fallacies that weaken (the) reliability of the argument.
First, the argument is based on the questionable information of the language and legends of the Innu. The validity of legend should be first suspected. Perhaps the two different kinds of bears are fabricated by people in order to amplified (aggrandize) the greatness of the legend, while it was actually not the case.(你想表达事实不像传说那样，但这个while放这里却成了，“人们夸大传说”不是事实了。呵呵，你再好好看看.) Even though the legend deserves our trust, we readers（listener？） are not sure about what the other kind of bear was. Perhaps it was author kind of bears（这个什么意思？other kind of？） which had little similarities to black bears as the argument described. Without ruling out these possibilities, the evidence of the legend can hardly lend strong support to demonstrate the existence of grizzly bears in Labrador.
Second, the experience of encountering a grizzly bear is neutral in some extent（neutral 在这里什么意思？ 应该是to some extent）. On one hand, we are not informed that the explorer was capable of distinguishing grizzle bears from black bears. On the other hand, even though the explorer had such ability, he would have little time and little attention（个人觉得可以说would not have enough time） to differentiate the two kinds of bears considering the similarities in color they shared and his dangerous situation. （个人觉得这里可以只论述由于出境危险所以没有足够的时间和注意力来区分，至于相似性太大，好像表达不清楚…）For these reasons, it's entirely possible that the explorer mistook the black bear for the grizzle one.
Third, the author also evades the fact that modern scientists find no substantial evidence that grizzly bears have lived in Labrador. Modern scientists have better understanding and abundant data of grizzly bears, and they also have more scientific methods to demonstrate the presence of them in Labrador. Now that there are（is。
evidence不可数） no physical evidence to（+prove？） the existence, and the author gave no direct response to this fact, I am not convinced fully to
（不是convinced to sth吧？可以改成convinced to accept）the conclusion avoiding it（这个词没看懂意思。换个词表达一下？ignoring？恩，如果说是作者没有提供这方面的回答所以我不信服这个结论，可以用beg the question）
In summary, the author fails to effectively warrant the subsistence（尽管是需要同义替换，但还是要合适吧？恩，个人觉得subsistence不太适合） of grizzly bears in Labrador. To better prove （support，substantiate）the conclusion, the author should 1)demonstrate the validity（and credibility） of the legend, （这前后是否需要词来连接啊？）the other kind of bear described in the legend is the grizzle bear; 2)provide reliable evidence that the explorer correctly recognized the grizzly bear; 3)respond directly to the unconfirmed existence of grizzly bears' in Labrador by modern scientists.（第三点是什么意思？呵呵？是说要作者明确回答科学家没有实物证明的这一问题吗？）




你知道吗，我在看这篇，写提纲时，我一个错误都找不出来，呵呵，你好厉害哦！加油！！！真高兴认识你！

小付UID: 2773363

我改了一下，发个全的上来，呵呵

The author cites a recent research of the language and legends of the Innu to get to the conclusion that there might be grizzly bears in Labrador, and to demonstrate the validity of the experience of meeting a grizzly bear. By careful observation, I found several logic fallacies that weaken the reliability of the argument.
First, the argument is based on the questionable information of the language and legends of the Innu. The validity of legend should be first suspected. Perhaps the two different kinds of bears are fabricated by people in order to aggrandize the greatness of the legend and it was actually not the case. Even though the legend deserves our trust, we listener are not sure about what the other kind of bear was. Perhaps it was other kind of bears which had little similarities to black bears as the argument described. Without ruling out these possibilities, the evidence of the legend can hardly lend strong support to demonstrate the existence of grizzly bears in Labrador.
Second, the experience of encountering a grizzly bear is open to doubt to some extent. On one hand, we are not informed that the explorer was capable of distinguishing grizzle bears from black bears. On the other hand, even though the explorer had such ability, he would not have enough time and attention to differentiate the two kinds of bears considering his dangerous situation. For these reasons, it's entirely possible that the explorer mistook the black bear for the grizzle one.
Third, the author also begs the question that modern scientists find no substantial evidence that grizzly bears have lived in Labrador. Modern scientists have better understanding and abundant data of grizzly bears, and they also have more scientific methods to demonstrate the presence of them in Labrador. Now that there is no physical evidence to prove the existence, and the author gave no direct response to this fact, I am not convinced fully to accept the conclusion ignoring it.

In summary, the author fails to effectively warrant the existence of grizzly bears in Labrador. To better
substantiate the conclusion, the author should 1) demonstrate the validity and the credibility of the legend, that is the other kind of bear described in the legend is the grizzle bear; 2) provide reliable evidence that the explorer correctly recognized the grizzly bear; 3) respond directly to the modern scientists’ uncertainty of the existence of grizzly bears' in Labrador.