ARG204，欢迎拍砖

美丽太阳花UID: 2798404

The arguer's view seems to be convincing and reasonable that the farmers should plant peanuts instead of sugar cane because the demand of sugar will decrease and the country of Palin increased the revenues through planting peanuts. However, there are several critical flaws by a further consideration.

First, the author uses the statistical relationship correction between the report and the demanding of sugar. He assumes that the decline needs of sugar are the results of the relative report and research. However, it does necessarily the demanding will decrease. Healthful diets do not mean that we can not eat sugar any more, sugar is very indispensable to humans that supplies energy and nutrition and easily absorbed by our body; on the other hand, the uses of sugar are manifold. According to the current society research, sugar has been successfully used to produce the new energy resource of gasoline and alcohol. So we can not easily get that conclusion.

Secondly, the author makes an oversimplified analogy between his nation and the country of Palin. The argument rests on the assumption that his nation is similar to the Palin in all respects. In Palin they increase the revenues by planting peanuts, maybe the climate and land are benefited to this kind of crops, local farmers have a lot of experience about planting peanuts, the government has encouraged policy to product this peanut and try to broad market. It is possible their seeds are new species which the fruit are better and good quality.

Finally, assuming that the demanding of sugar would decline, it is not sensible to change the plants. As common sense, there are limited resources and land, replants costs a lot of money, but we have no critical evidence that we can escalate revenues. Solutions such as improving the quality of sugar cane and bring new high-technology to plant are ignored by the writer, which weakens the argument.

In sum, the authors makes many logical mistakes, thus the opinion is not accepted, much more important factors need to be taken into consideration. The more details provided, the more reasonable it is.

zhangjunzjUID: 2658970

以后上题目，方便看
The arguer's view seems to be convincing and reasonable that the farmers ...，尽量不要用这种表达，既然是convicng and reasonable那你何必反驳呢？
改为：the author recommends that the farmers should plant peanuts instead of sugar cane in order to enhance their revenues.
还有，arguer 和author有统一，不要一下arguer一下author的。
‘He assumes that the decline needs of sugar are the results of the relative report and research.’你这句话表述不正确，改为：The author illogically assumes that the new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar must result in the decline of sugar demand .
'very indispensable ',indispensable前一般不加very,我没见过这么加的。
第一个逻辑漏洞抓的不好，我认为应该是：according to the research that eating too much sugar would be harmful to health,while eating just enough would be necessary and beneficail to our health.关键在于这个too much.这个地区的人本来吃糖量达不到research 的too much，research 公布后不会有任何影响，相反，在这个地区很有可能人们都喜欢吃糖，种糖的量本来就比较的少，糖是供不应求的。增加种植量还有可能增加收入。
第二个漏洞你抓住了一个方面，但还有一个方面是，total revenues from that crop were quite high并不代表profits就高，很有可能种花生的costs也很大。

我很少逐句去评的，希望我的点评对你有帮助，继续努力吧

美丽太阳花UID: 2798404

2# zhangjunzj
正在仔细看，谢谢指导
我会慢慢改进的:)