[116G]风雨与共小组第一周作文作业 ARGU237

xianyejiayuUID: 2803531

A237

The article argue that B should stimulate its economic development by providing the same policy as D, reducing tax rate and offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities, for those to relocate to D. To support the claimation. the author cited a statistics that during the past 18 months, two manufactory companies settled here because of the attractive policy. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals various logical problems, which render it unconvincing.


Firstly, it is unwarranted to assume that D has a prosperity in economic or other aspects. It is entirely possible that companies here running in bad condition. Or even perhaps the enticed policy just attempts to save the companies on the edge of bankrupting. Without sufficient evidence to represent the present conditions in D, we can hardly make a conclusion that providing the same policy would make our city prospect.


Secondly, granted that Dillon does have a prosperity in economic. The two companies settled here just for its attracting policy seems groundless. May the environment here is applicable to their development. Or perhaps raw matiarials are cheaper.With out ruling out other alternatives , how can we claim that this policy will surely benefit for prompting the increase of our economic?


Thirdly, even though the relocation really have a good effect on companies settled here. The statistics reliability is really questionable. These is no evidence indicated that it may reduce the rate of unemployment. However, can’t these companies employ workers outside Dilliton? And maybe this is not a intelligent way to improve the present condition on unemployment.


Finally, Although D really have a great beneficial from this relocation and solved the problem of unemployment, without information relating to comparisons between the two cities, the article unfairly assumes that similar incentives will carry a similar result for B . An opposite effect may influent the growing of the economic market here. And perhaps unemployed B residents reluctant to accept the working opportunity offered by these new settlers. Only the author cited the further evidence can we convinced the plan be feasible.


To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands.
To strengthen it ,the author must provide the present conditions after the policy implementing, and whether the same condition may lasting in the future. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information that whether the policy feasible in B and the negative effect may cause after carrying out it.

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

The article argue that B should stimulate its economic development by providing the same policy as D, reducing tax rate and offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities, for those(those what?前面并没出现过任何指代物。) to relocate to D. To support the claimation. the author cited a statistics that during the past 18 months, two manufactory companies settled here （作者的support是针对B的，这里还是用D比较好，容易混淆）because of the attractive policy. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals various logical problems, which render it unconvincing.


Firstly, it is unwarranted to assume that D has a prosperity in economic （economy，or是并列连词，前后成分要一致）or other aspects. It is entirely possible that companies here running in bad condition. Or even perhaps the enticed policy just attempts to save the companies on the edge of bankrupting. Without sufficient evidence to represent （prove比较和evidence贴切，而且觉得represent和present一起有点拗口）the present conditions in D, we can hardly make a conclusion that providing the same policy would make our city prospect.（破产的这个想法不错，果断接收了）


Secondly, granted that Dillon does have a prosperity in economic.（economy，不该的小错误哦） The two companies settled here just for its attracting policy seems groundless. May the environment here is applicable to their development. Or perhaps raw matiarials are cheaper.With out ruling out other alternatives , how can we claim that this policy will surely benefit for prompting the increase of our economic（词义搞混了？）?


Thirdly, even though the relocation（不是很理解relocation这里的意思，重新安置对公司安置于此有好的作用？对于行文逻辑，按我理解，这里应该是local policy吧？） really have a good effect on companies settled here. The statistics reliability is really questionable. These （there）is no evidence indicated that it may （might，前后时态）reduce the rate of unemployment. However, can’t these companies employ workers outside Dilliton? And maybe this is not a intelligent way to improve the present condition on unemployment.


Finally, Although D really have a great beneficial from this relocation and solved the problem of unemployment, without information relating to comparisons between the two cities, the article unfairly assumes that similar incentives will carry  （present,按我的理解应该是展现出一个相似的效果，不知和你的理解一样否？）a similar result（effect，比起结果，效果，我觉得更准确点） for （in）B . An opposite effect may influent the growing of the economic market here. And perhaps unemployed B residents reluctant to accept the working opportunity offered by these new settlers. Only the author cited the further evidence can we convinced the plan be feasible.


To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. （这个是忘了删的吧？）
To strengthen it ,the author must provide the present conditions after the policy implementing, and whether the same condition may lasting in the future. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information that whether the policy feasible in B and the negative effect may cause after carrying out it.

ggj_lllUID: 2796021

A237

The article argue(s) that B should stimulate its economic development by providing the same policy as D, (including) reducing tax rate and offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities, for those to relocate to D. To support the claimation [改成claim] , the author cited a statistics [statistics在这里不合适，改成an evidence]that during the past 18 months, two manufactory companies settled here [here改成there比较好，因为the author 应该是属于B市，故D市应该称为there比较好] because of the attractive policy. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals various logical problems, which render it unconvincing.


Firstly, it is unwarranted to assume that D has a prosperity in economic or other aspects. It is entirely possible that companies here running in bad condition [that 后面引导的应该是一个从句，故改为：companies there are in bad condition]. Or even perhaps the enticed[enticed有引诱，怂恿之意，是一个负向词，应该改掉，用appealing，不过我也不确定] policy just attempts to save the companies on the edge of bankrupting. Without sufficient evidence to represent the present conditions in D, we can hardly make a conclusion that providing the same policy would make our city prospect. (个人意见：argument 的题目中并没有说D是一个经济繁荣的地区，而只是强调D的政策对于刺激经济和就业有作用而已，所以我个人觉得这个攻击点有点偏了)
Secondly, granted that Dillon does have a prosperity in economic. [这里的句号应该改为逗号，和下一句连成一个句子，否则给巨资不完整，只有一个让步成分] the two companies settled here just for its attracting policy seems groundless. May the environment here is applicable [applicable 意思是（规则等）可以被应用的，或适于应用的，在这里指环境不太合适，改成beneficial] to their development. Or perhaps raw matiarials are cheaper in D. Without ruling out other alternatives, how can we claim that this policy will surely benefit for prompting the increase of our economic?


Thirdly, even though the relocation(s) really have a good effect on companies settled here (there). The statistics reliability is really questionable. These is no evidence indicated that it may reduce the rate of unemployment. However, [however这里表示转折，但是上下文没有转折的意思]can’t these companies employ workers outside Dilliton? And maybe this is not a intelligent way to improve the present condition on unemployment.[这里还可以顺便举出一些其它提高就业率的方法与措施，这样可以增加篇幅，个人建议]


Finally, Although D really have a great beneficial from this relocation and solved the problem of unemployment, without information relating to comparisons between the two cities, the article unfairly assumes that similar incentives will carry a similar result for B . An opposite effect may influent the growing of the economic market here. And perhaps unemployed B residents [are] reluctant to accept the working opportunity [opportunities] offered by these new settlers [companies]. Only the author cited the further evidence can we convinced [convince在can 之后，用动词原形]  the plan be feasible.


To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it ,the author must provide the present conditions after the policy implementing, and whether the same condition may lasting in the future. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information that whether the policy feasible in B and the negative effect may cause after carrying out it

文章结构完整，攻击点之间衔接的比较好。

不足之处：
1.        文章有一些地方有语法、句法上的错误；
2.        整篇文章好像无论D城市还是B城市都称为here, 参见第一段(D为here)和第4段(B为here).
3.        文章在用词方面有些词用得不太恰当。