5.27作文，有想互批的么？每天一篇A，I希望互批，彼此提高！

liang0603UID: 3182007

已加入作文小组，不再更新。

mousha742UID: 3268584

lz你是不是木有写题号 - -1

SphinxLinuxUID: 3136674

寄托有专门的作文互改板块的，LZ去看看吧:)

liang0603UID: 3182007

2# mousha742   呵呵，是啊，忘记了，这个是别人找的题目，嘻嘻，加了一个群，Lz分题。

mousha742UID: 3268584

4# liang0603 戳手- -·我也不知道自己水平怎么样能不能帮到你改作文的说- -~~~揉脸~

liang0603UID: 3182007

5# mousha742   怎么能这么说，我写的也很差啊，想通过修改共同提高。

雪国90UID: 3006165

lz 也没有写INSTRUCTION 额。。。  我也想找人改作文~

mousha742UID: 3268584

第一篇argument ，海涵。。。

In the analysis, the arguer concludes that to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings will increase the company's profits. To support the conclusion, the arguer comes up with the some evidences that few people complain about the restrict water and reports about the problems of showers. With acute and careful examination about the conclusion, we could easily find that the conclusion suffers from several flaws.

In the first place, the arguer has given three buildings to be modified to restrict maximum water flow, and which will not give efficient evidences that all of the 12 buildings' restriction would result in a few complaints. As there are just three of the building is restricted maximum water flow, it has well likelihood that just at that time people living in those buildings are busy in other things and get no time to drop by to complain about the water flow stuff. Consequently when the time is enough and the anger exceeds their tolerant they would just come to complain, and that is just a problem of time. To confirm the conclusion, the arguer should give more evidence about people's attitudes about the restricted water flow.

In the second place, the arguer fails to give the useful evidence of the actual reading of water usage, and he or she just unfairly assumes that the usage of water just declined. From the analysis we could not draw the conclusion that the total usage of water is declined. As the actual reading is not given, we cannot make the judgment that the total water usage would make the company pay for less fees(感觉和上一句略重复了- -~可以适当精简下~). The enhancing in fees of the water would be another reason the profit would increase, with the total pay being higher. (文章说的是减少了最大用水这样就可以俭省公司的花费，如果是水费变大 profit 应该是decrease~lz想说的是如果水费增长那么就算是限制最大用量也不会让profit increase 吧 - -•)What is more, to get a good shower people might choose to wash（洗澡不能说wash吧 - -~） in a longer time which might use more water when water flow is not restricted, and therefore the company would get a more lost in water which might make the company pay more.
感觉第二个的论述比第一个丰富，第一个可以多论述一下，lz说了12栋楼的可能会有更多的complaint，然后也说了住户可能因为其他的事情耽搁了，觉得可以写得更有层次一些，先说可能是住户被其他事情耽误了，然后说就算没有被耽误，全部12栋楼的住户可能也不会和这三栋的人一样~

At last, to justify the conclusion, the arguer should give more clear information about all the equipment in the 12 buildings. In the analysis the arguer just puts up with the reports about the showers, but he might just conceal the information about other equipment. For the reason that when the customers are getting showers in a very slow fluid they might be too angry to do some harm to other equipment to revenge the company, such as cups. To support the conclusion the arguer should provide more information about other reports about these.
开头和结尾貌似都是中规中矩的模板类似的 ~这个我水平也不好 - -没什么说的 - -•
其实觉得lz可以在考虑另一个问题，为了increase the profit 不一定是要限制最大水量，可以考虑其他的方法~

揉脸 - -还有课 - -~issue的晚上发吧 - -。只能说这些了 - -

PigsJourneyUID: 3214294

开头好熟悉啊，呵呵～

mousha742UID: 3268584

0 0 lz一直不会我就默默地天窗好了- -。。揉脸。。。

liang0603UID: 3182007

8# mousha742
呵呵，改的好仔细，我再仔细考虑，并整理下。

mousha742UID: 3268584

Argument：
Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton. According to the Leeville Chamber of Commerce, these facts can be attributed to the health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life in Leeville.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.


In the analysis, the arguer concludes that in Leeville there is relatively relaxed pace of the life. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that Leevill has fewer sick days than Masonton, and moreover, to further strengthen it, he(这个- -~作者性别不明- -还是说什么author, arguer好些吧~) cites the statistic data that Leevill gets lower stress-related illness. However, with a careful and thorough examination, we could claim the argument suffers from several flaws.

Primarily, more evidences should be investigated to draw the conclusion because the arguer unfairly assumes from the narrow data from the analysis. Here by comparison I just draw some possibilities that could attribute to the statistic data the arguer puts forward, and form the analysis we could infer that Leeville is a small city whereas Masonton is a big city.(举手问下,这一段是不是模板的成分有很多,我木有看过模板，但是觉得这一段的论述信息密度不高，只是说两个城市不一样，然后一个可能是大城市，一个是小城市，然后咧~这个会对结果有什么影响~这个可以展开说 - -~看了下面的lz貌似就是对于第一个sick days 的攻击提到了big 和 small city~那么这个其实可以不用专门提出来一段的吧~)

In the first place, as for the few sick days, a good work condition or good environment （可以用些词替换下good的吧- -~）would contribute to the good health of people in Leeville, where is a small city containing less pollutions than the bigger city of Masonton. The arguer does not refer any information about the kind of work under survey in these two cities, and common sense tells us that consequently different works would also have different work condition or environment.（这一句和上一句的意思是不是有点重复的说~？） For example, the workers in Leeville just do cleaning jobs just walk in a small park every day in not only cleanness but also healthy environment, on the contrary, workers in the big city might have to breathe the polluted air which is extremely harmful to their health. From this point, the auger’s conclusion is unwarranted.
（歪楼下~前一天我也写的是这个，在论坛上看到帖子的一个攻击点很好~就是文章说L城生活节奏比较relaxed，所以sick days 少，但是可能正是因为L城生活节奏不relaxed，worker才会更少的请病假，因为工作太忙了•）
Likewise, the arguer might draw wrong conclusion from the diagnosis of stress-related, because he fails to discriminate the correlation and causal relation between his evidences and conclusion. The wanting of a vocation could be supplanted by the diagnosis of stress, to some extent, it is great chances that the workers in Masonton just want to make a leave with spurious diagnosis. Even worse, one could just make that hundreds of time if he or she has a friend being a doctor. In this case, we just cannot make the arguer's conclusion either.

Admittedly, even if the two statistic data is based on the actual fact, there might be the government’ rules or different healthy treatments in different places that make the phenomenon to exist. If there were rules that works have a sick-day limit then it would also result in the less sick days in Leeville. Meanwhile sick days could be curtailed if the patients are revival and so on.

From the reasons above, we could conclude it might not the same reason with the argument.
是木有时间了么？  - -貌似最后一段可以提提建议说下还需要什么证据让argument更有逻辑吧~


拙见。。。海涵，，，，

liang0603UID: 3182007

12# mousha742

改的好仔细哦，谢谢，这篇文章我开始没列提纲，所以乱写的。。。。加QQ哇。。。