嘉文博译的Argument范文（整理版）浏览+下载

imongUID：140258

argument214

In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools---even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents.

The thrust of this argument is based on the idea that two different cities place different values on public education because they budget different amounts of money for their public schools. Although each city in the region of Treehaven gets the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education from taxes collected by each city’s governments, Parson City usually budgets twice as much money for public schools as does Blue City, even though the populations are similar. The arguer then concludes that Parson City residents therefore care more about public school education than Blue City residents. There are no facts presented in this argument that can logically lead to such a conclusion.

The entire argument is based on the flimsy premise that because the two cities have the same number of residents, they should therefore budget the same amount of money for each city’s schools. First of all, the money that each city “budgets” for its public schools does not necessarily indicate the value that each city’s residents place on public school education. There could be numerous other reasons for the discrepancy rather than the value that a city’s residents place on public education. For example, it is possible that Parson City’s budget for public education is twice that of Blue City because they have twice the number of students that Blue City has. The number of residents is not the key factor when deciding how much money a public school education system needs, the number of students attending each school district is of paramount importance. Blue City may have a far greater number of older residents, while Parson City may have a much younger average age demographic, demonstrated by a much higher population of school-age children. As another example, it is possible that Blue City “budgets” half the money for public school education that Parson City does because it supports its public schools through other means, such as public bonds or fees, rather than by a budget that comes from tax money. Perhaps Blue City has self-supporting public schools that do not require a budget from the city. In all of these cases, the value that each city places on its public school education is not determined merely by how much money is budgeted by its own city government.

Furthermore, the value or amount of “care” that Parson City or Blue City has for its public education is not necessarily indicated by each city’s budget for its public education system. The money that is budgeted cannot be directly equated with the value that a city’s residents place on its educational system. In theory, a city’s government should follow through with its residents’ wishes regarding how taxes are expended. However, in reality, what a government does may have very little to do with what its residents want, particularly on a short-term basis. It is highly likely that the residents of both cities place an equal value on public school education, regardless of the money budgeted by each city’s government.

In addition, it is possible that Blue City has a much higher proportion of religious or private educational institutions that are meeting its public education needs. Because these types of schools do not depend on governmental funds to operate, the need for public school funding may be half that of Parson City, which may have only public schools and no privately funded schools.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on the fundamentally wrong idea that the amount of money budgeted by a city’s government is directly equivalent to how much that particular city’s residents care about its public school education system. When viewed from this perspective, it is obvious that this argument is not based on logical reasoning and it must therefore be rejected.

(637 words)

参考译文

[题目]

在Treehaven地区的每个市内，投入到由政府管理的公立学校教育上的经费，多数来自每个市的市政府所征收的税款。但是，该地区的每个城市，它们对公共教育的价值各有不同的认同。例如，Parson市每年为其公立学校预算的经费是Blue市的两倍，尽管这两个城市的居民数量大致相同。因此，似乎显而易见，Parson市的居民要比Blue市的居民更加关注公立学校的教育。


[范文正文]

上述论点的主旨基于这样一个观念，即两个不同的城市对公共教育的价值有着不同的认同，因为它们对各自公共教育的价值有着不同的认同，因为它们为各自公立学校所作的经费预算完全不同。尽管Treehaven地区的每个城市花在由政府管理的公立学校教育上的经费，大部分来自每个市政府所征收的税款，但Parson市一般情况下投入到公立学校上的预算额度是Blue市的两倍，虽然两市的人口大致一样。论述者然后得出结论认为，与Blue市的居民相比，Parson市的居民由此而表现出了对公立学校教育更大的关注。但是，此项论述中根本没有任何的事实被列举出来，用来合乎逻辑地让人得出这一结论。

纵观整项论述，我们发现它仅仅基于这样一个脆弱的前提，即因为两个城市拥有相同数量的居民，因此它们应该为各自城市的公立学校预算相同数额的经费。首先，每个城市为其公立学校“预算”的经费并不必定能表明每个城市的居民所赋予给公立学校教育的价值。对于预算经费的差异，可能存在着其他的原因，这与某一城市的居民所赋予给公共教育的价值无关。例如，Parson市之所以为其公共教育预算了两倍于Blue市的经费，有可能是因为其学生数量两倍于Blue市。在决定某一公立学校教育体系需要多少费用的过程中，居民的数量不是一个关键性因素，而每个校区上学的学生数量才具有至关重要的意义。Blue市的老年居民数量可能远来得多，而Parson市则可能拥有一个远来得年轻的平均年龄人口统计，表现为一个远为庞大的学龄儿童人口。再如，Blue市为其公立学校的教育所作的经费预算可能仅为Parson市的一半，因为该市通过其他手段（如公共债券和收费）来支持其公立学校，而非通过来自税款的预算。还有可能是，Blue市的公立学校可做到自给自足，并不需要来自市政府的财政预算。在所有这些情形中，每个城市所赋予给公立学校教育的价值并非仅仅取决于各自政府预算了多少教育经费。

此外，无论是Parson市还是Blue市，对各自公共教育所赋予的价值，或曰“关注”程度，并不必定是通过每一城市为其公共教育系统所作的预算而体现出来的。预算所确定的经费不能直接等同于一个城市的居民所赋予给其教育体系的价值。从理论上来说，市政府在如何使用税收这一问题上理应遵循居民们的愿望。但在现实当中，政府的所作所为与居民们的愿望可能毫无关系，尤其是在短期规划上。极有可能的是，两市的居民对公共教育的价值同样地注重，无论每个市政府所预算的教育经费是多少。

此外，Blue市可能拥有数量远为众多的宗教或私立教育机构，可满足其公共教育的需要。由于这些类型的学校不需要依赖政府经费来维持其运转，故其所需筹措的公立学校经费可能仅为Parson市教育经费的一半，而Parson市有可能只有公立学校，根本没有任何私人筹资的学校。

总而言之，论述者将其论点基于一个根本谬误的观念，即某一市政府所作的教育经费预算直接等同于那个特定城市的居民对其公立学校教育体制的关注程度。从这一角度来看，显而易见，该项论述没有基于合乎逻辑的推理，故一定要予以摈弃。

imongUID：140258

argument216

The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.

"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."

With this argument, the writer attempts to persuade the reader that Clearview should be a top choice as a retirement destination due to its “spectacular natural beauty” and its consistent climate. The writer also states that other advantages to retiring in Clearview include the fact that housing costs have fallen “significantly” during the past year and that real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. The writer goes on to state that even with lower housing costs and real estate taxes, the city’s mayor has promised new improvement programs for schools, streets and public services. Finally, the writer argues that because the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average, people who retire in Clearview can expect excellent health care. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it should therefore be rejected.

The first problem is with the claim that people should retire in Clearview because of its “spectacular natural beauty”. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder – what one retiree considers natural beauty might be a barren landscape to another. Some people prefer deserts while others prefer forests. Furthermore, the writer claims that Clearview has a “consistent” climate. What type of “consistent” climate does it have? Antarctica and the Mojave Desert have consistent climates, yet it is doubtful that few people would want to retire there. Without describing what the “spectacular natural beauty” is and what type of consistent climate Clearview has, the argument fails to convince that it is an ideal retirement location.

The second problem arises from the writer’s claims that housing costs have fallen consistently in the past year and that real estate taxes are lower than those in surrounding towns. First of all, the mere fact that housing costs have fallen does not give a good indication of housing costs as compared to other possible retirement locations. It is possible that houses were outrageously priced one year ago and that they are still priced much higher than the national average. Similarly, real estate taxes may be lower than those of surrounding cities but may still be much higher relative to those of other potential retirement communities. Furthermore, even assuming that real estate taxes are lower, other taxes, such as sales or personal property taxes, may be much higher than everywhere else. Without stating the housing costs or real estate and other taxes relative to other potential retirement areas, the writer has critically weakened his or her argument.

In addition, the writer mentions the mayor’s promises to improve schools, streets and public services. Not much needs to be said about the validity of a politician’s promises, particularly during an election year – they are usually not worth the paper that they are printed on. The mere promises of a politician do not make for a convincing argument that one should retire in Clearview.

Finally, the writer argues that people who retire in Clearview can expect excellent healthcare because the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average. It simply does not follow that the number of physicians in an area has anything to do with the quality of the health care offered. It is possible that many of these physicians are retired themselves and do not practice medicine. Even more seriously, perhaps the city of Clearview has an extremely easy licensing procedure that allows practically anyone to become a physician. Without further supporting evidence, the mere number of physicians in the area has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare offered in Clearview.

In summary, the writer’s arguments sound like the Clearview tourism bureau wrote them – they sound good in the magazine article but fail to hold up under closer inspection. Without further proof that the stated benefits of Clearview for retirees in Clearview are actually beneficial, the writer’s argument fails to convince on its premise that Clearview is a good choice as a retirement destination.

(659 words)


参考译文


[题目]
下述文字摘自有关规划退休的一篇杂志文章。

“鉴于其壮观的自然美景以及稳定的气候状况，Clearview市应该成为任何一个寻找隐退场所的人的首选。作为一种额外的有利条件，Clearview市的住房费用在过去一年中大幅下降，且房地产税要比邻近城镇保持着更低的水平。虽然如此，Clearview市的市长承诺，将实施许多新计划来改善学校、街道和公共服务水平。在Clearview市，退休人员还可望随着年龄的日渐增加而获得优良的医疗保健，因为该地区的大夫数量远高于全国的平均数量。”


[范文正文]

通过上述论述，文章作者试图让其读者相信，Clearview市不失为退休目的地之首选，因为它拥有“壮观的自然美景”和稳定的气候状况。文章作者还指出，适合于在Clearview退休的其他有利条件中还包括这样一个事实，即在过去的一年中居住费用已“大幅度”下降，房地产税比邻近城镇保持着更低的水平。这位作者继续论述道，即使已经有了较低的居住费用及房地产税，该市的市长仍承诺针对学校、街道和公共服务实施一些新的改进计划。最后，文章作者论述道，由于该地区医生的数量远高于全国平均数量，所以在Clearview市欢度退休生活的人们有望获得优良的医疗保健。此项陈述基于甚成问题的逻辑推理，理应予应摈弃。

第一个问题在于这样一种主张，即人们应该在Clearviwe度过其退休生活，因为这里有“壮观的自然美景”。正如俗话所说，美仅存在于观赏者心目之中，因此，在一位退休者心目中可构成一片自然美景的东西可能在另一位退休者眼中仅是一片光秃秃的风景。有些人喜欢沙漠，但另一些人则偏爱森林。此外，文章作者称Clearview市拥有一种“稳定”的气候状况。但那种“稳定”的气候条件到底是指什么呢？南极洲和莫哈维沙漠的气候状况始终如一，但令人怀疑的是，会有人意愿在那里度过其退休生活吗？由于没有清楚地描述“状观的自然美景”是什么，以及Clearview市的稳定气候状况究竟是何种类型，故此项论述没法使人相信Clearview市是一处理想的退休场所。

第二个问题源于文章作者的两个主张，即住房成本在过去一年中已大幅度下降，且当地的房地产税低于邻近城镇。首先，居住成本已经下降，这一事实本身并不能有力地表明Clearview市相对于其他有可能的退休场所的居住成本。情况有可能是，这里的房价曾贵得离谱，现在的房价仍然远高于全国的平均指数。同样地，房地产税有可能低于邻近城镇，但相比于其他潜在的退休社区仍可能高出很多。此外，即使我们假设房地产税相对较低，但其他税项（例如销售税或个人财产税）则有可能远高于其他地方。由于没能说明Clearview市相对于其他潜在的退休地区在其住房费用或房地产及其他税收方面的情况，故文章作者严重地削弱了其论点的逻辑性。

此外，文章作者还提到Clearview市的市长已承诺要改善学校、道路及公共服务。关于政客们所作承诺的有效性，尤其是在选举之年所作的承诺，我们几乎没有必要再作讨论。这些承诺的价值通常不会超出印着这些承诺的纸片的价值。一位政客所作的某些承诺，尚不足以构成人们应该在Clearview市度过退休生活的一项令人置信的论据。

最后，文章作者论述道，在Clearview市度过其退休生活的人有望获得良好的医疗保健，因为这一地区的医生数量远超过全国的平均数。但仅凭这一点根本无法得出这样的结论，即一个地区的医生数量与该地区所提供的医疗保健质量必定成正比。有可能的是，这些医生中的许多人自己已经退休，不再行医。甚至更为严重的是，在Clearview市，获取行医资格的程序极为简易，使几乎任何人都有资格成为医生。由于没有进一步的佐证依据，该地区医生数量本身与Clearview市所能提供的医疗保健的质量就不存在任何必然的联系。

总而言之，文章作者的论述听上去仿佛是由Clearview市的旅游局撰写的。这些论点对于杂志类文章来说听上去甚为诱人，但细加推敲则不堪一击。由于没有进一步的证据来证明该作者所陈述的Clearview市的各种益处对于Clearview市退休者来说确实有益，故他（或她）的论点没能证实其命题，即Clearview市作为一个退休目的地不失为一个不错的选择。