argu228 第1次贴argument, 请多关照!

flyingwindUID: 189320

Argu228  The following appeared in a newsletter from a political organization.
'In order to promote economic growth in the city, city residents should vote 'yes' on the state government's proposal to build a new expressway linking the outlying suburbs directly to the city center. A direct link to the city center will enable downtown businesses to receive deliveries more frequently, so that downtown retailers will no longer run out of stock and city manufacturers will not be affected by shortages of materials. Booming businesses will attract qualified workers from all over the state, workers who will be able to take advantage of the new expressway to commute to work in our city. In addition to these advantages, hundreds of workers will be employed to build the expressway, further stimulating the local economy!'
为促进本市的经济增长，市民应该对州政府关于建造直接连接郊区和市中心的新高速路的提案投赞成票。到市中心的直接连接将使中心商业区的货运更加频繁，从而中心区的零售商就不会再断货，市内的生产商也不会受到材料短缺的影响。繁荣的商业将会从整个州吸引合格的工人，工人可以利用新的高速路在本市上班。除了这些好处，上百的工人将被雇佣修筑这条道路，进一步促进地方经济。

The proposal of the arguer is premature as it stands. Before following the author's persuasion to agree with the proposal to build a new expressway linking the suburbs to the city center, the city residents should be told more details about whether it is needed to budgets on the project of expressway and to what extent the expressway will benefit the local economy.

The arguer's assumption was that because the direct link to the city center will enable the deliveries exchange, the downtown retailers and the manufacturers will not have shortages of selling stuff. Nevertheless, whether is it often the case that the retailers or manufacturers afflicted by the shortage of selling? Maybe there is seasonally shortage occurring every year or maybe the shortage of selling products is just an aberrant in particular month? If this is the case, the excess delivery of products will definitely put the retailers and manufacturer to an embarrassment: the products cannot be sold out.

In addition, even assuming that shortages of products and materials are common, whether the building of another expressway will do favor to solve the problem is still open to doubt. If the traffic in the city is pretty good in that time or the deliveries of products have always been frequently and enough to supply the demand of retailers and manufacturers, the another expressway leading to the deliveries "more frequently" is meaningless, especially considering the huge project of building another expressway will exacerbate the burden of taxpayers, say, all the city residents. If this is the case, the building of gratuitous expressway will decrease more than stimulate the local economy as a result.

Furthermore, the arguer unfairly assumes that the booming businesses will attract workers form the state using the new expressway to commute. First, how the business in the city called "booming"? Retail and manufacture are only two in myriads of industries. The improvement of the delivery of products for the retailers and manufacturers do not assume that the whole business is booming. Second, even if the business is booming, it does not necessarily prove that the qualified workers will be attracted from all over the state. The working satisfaction, the climates of the working residence, or the nearer working place to one's home may be more attractive for a worker. Third, it is not most important for workers to take to commute as the arguer cited. If another way is nearer and faster to go way working, why bother taking the new expressway just for saving five or six minutes driving? Maybe the time spent driving to the new expressway will cost twenty minutes or even more!

Finally, due to several reasons such as price or service attitude, the workers building the expressway may be workers from other cities in the state or even from other states. Does if mean that the building of the expressway stimulate the extraneous economy of other city or other state rather than the local economy? Even if the workers were hired locally, to what extent the several hundreds of workers benefit the local economy is still a question. Moreover, if the project benefits the local employment, what those workers do in the building time span? In fact, the building job lasted for one or two years at the most.

Overall, the argument is not persuasive on several aspects discussed above. The government should take the responsibilities to make a further investigation about the reason hampering the increase of local economy, and the city residents have the right to know it.

flyingwindUID: 189320

up

poohUID: 146994

看了一下发现些问题。

body 3 第三个分论有些勉强
body 4 不大明白你的意思

另外你忽视了几点：
是否修了路之后就能够“从而中心区的零售商就不会再断货，市内的生产商也不会受到材料短缺的影响”。因为可能这些原料和产品并不是来自郊区，可能是来自other states, 即便来自郊区郊区的产量也有限，可能生产不了那么快

另一个问题是，如果吸引到外州的工人，那么本州的劳动力供给可能突增，失业率上升

基本来说写得不错，语言基础好，body 1. 2. 3逻辑比较清晰，除了body4 让我有点糊涂。


互相帮助一下:)

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=239460

flyingwindUID: 189320

谢谢pooh，马上“互相帮助一下”哈

我觉得gter上的argu优秀的范文太少的（网友的），毕竟同样的权重！
不知道pooh，imong等斑竹可不可以做一些优秀argu的精华啊，argu得高分的人并不见得很多！

body4我的意思是雇佣的工人不一定来自本城，如果其他地方的建筑工人服务好，价格便宜的话。如果说雇佣本城工人可以提高就业率的话，如果来自其他地方不是为其他城市经济做贡献？即使工人来自本地，说是提高多少就业率不能持久，毕竟修路时间有限，又不是天天修。而且刺激本地多少有些夸张了。
基本上就是你说的“另一个问题是，如果吸引到外州的工人，那么本州的劳动力供给可能突增，失业率上升”，呵呵，我没表达清楚哈，所以你没看到这条在我的body4里面。

poohUID: 146994

恐怕是你body4的逻辑不清晰，

“如果说雇佣本城工人可以提高就业率的话，如果来自其他地方不是为其他城市经济做贡献？”
---这样说是有问题的。 无论如何不会对别的城市有贡献，如果是高技术的工作，那么我们就会把别的城市的优秀人才挖走，显然是对别的城市不利。如果是劳动力集中的工作，一般工资低，显然本市利用了廉价劳动力。


“即使工人来自本地，说是提高多少就业率不能持久，毕竟修路时间有限，又不是天天修。而且刺激本地多少有些夸张了。”

-----美国Great Depression 时期，罗斯福新政就包括大搞这些基础设施建设，来减少失业，刺激经济发展。作者这样说也不是完全没有道理的。

我是感觉body4写得有些牵强，反驳的缺少力度。

我也不是argument的专家啦，研究不多，你的提议可以考虑一下，再跟他们商量商量

flyingwindUID: 189320

逻辑我写的是有些乱，谢谢pooh！先不处理逻辑，先看看说的一些批驳点成不成立。

[B]
-----美国Great Depression 时期，罗斯福新政就包括大搞这些基础设施建设，来减少失业，刺激经济发展。作者这样说也不是完全没有道理的。
[/B]

“大搞基础建设”有刺激经济的作用的话，只修一条路，上百个工人，起多大的经济促进作用可不可以反驳呢？题目用的话是“除了这些好处，上百的工人将被雇佣修筑这条道路，进一步促进地方经济”，总觉得这里有点毛病似的。

最初由 pooh 发布
[B]
“如果说雇佣本城工人可以提高就业率的话，如果来自其他地方不是为其他城市经济做贡献？”
---这样说是有问题的。
[/B]

如果就着上面说的“罗斯福新政就包括大搞这些基础设施建设，来减少失业，刺激经济发展。作者这样说也不是完全没有道理的”来说，那“来自其他地方不是为其他城市经济做贡献？”不是有点道理啊？好象是支持我的拨论的啊

最初由 pooh 发布
[B]
如果是高技术的工作，那么我们就会把别的城市的优秀人才挖走，显然是对别的城市不利。如果是劳动力集中的工作，一般工资低，显然本市利用了廉价劳动力。
[/B]

这里正好和我文中有个对应“due to several reasons such as price or service attitude”；“高技术”对应service本地提供不了的技术或者服务要求一类的；“price”对应低工资，自己城市提供不了的价格优势。的确是本市是占了便宜的，那么这是不是可以说是提高了经济；但是另一方面来说，给别的城市的人提供了就业机会，不是给自己也带来劣势吗（可以认为没有刺激经济吗？毕竟文中用来证明“促进地方经济”的话，论据就是“上百的工人将被雇佣修筑这条道路”，应该是说就业机会吧？）；是不是有点吹毛求疵了？

pooh认为呢？想看看你的意见！

poohUID: 146994

你说得也有道理，ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ只要自圆其说就好了，但是要注意严谨一点。

“如果就着上面说的“罗斯福新政就包括大搞这些基础设施建设，来减少失业，刺激经济发展。作者这样说也不是完全没有道理的”来说，那“来自其他地方不是为其他城市经济做贡献？”不是有点道理啊？好象是支持我的拨论的啊”
－－－我是指的本市，还没有听说过你这种结论。
外地来的人在本地工作，一是带来了劳动力，二是给本市带来了技术，三是这些人要纳税，四是这些人要消费带动本地经济的发展。

“due to several reasons such as price or service attitude”
ａｔｔｉｔｕｄｅ　是什么意思？这句话表达不清楚，用词不当，相当ｖａｇｕｅ。

imongUID: 140258

提醒一下 注意发贴格式 ^^

flyingwindUID: 189320

最初由 pooh 发布
[B]“due to several reasons such as price or service attitude”
ａｔｔｉｔｕｄｅ　是什么意思？这句话表达不清楚，用词不当，相当ｖａｇｕｅ。
[/B]

的确是，呵呵。差的远啊。

最初由 pooh 发布
[B我是指的本市，还没有听说过你这种结论。
外地来的人在本地工作，一是带来了劳动力，二是给本市带来了技术，三是这些人要纳税，四是这些人要消费带动本地经济的发展
[/B]

想的多了就比较的复杂了的，的确做推论的时候要想想是不是会有结果反对推论的结果。看来这个雇佣外地人是得》失的啊，真的是：

[[Bａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ只要自圆其说就好了，但是要注意严谨一点[/B]

啊，呵呵
谢谢pooh！

ZHGsunnyUID: 185312

开头段有新意，蛮好！语言方面同意pooh，基础很好。关于思路方面说说我自己的看法。
1。我觉得你的正文第一，二段是不是可以合并为一段：是不是有必要建expressway？
2。第二段，如果是我写这篇文章的话我可能会这样写：Booming business 和expressway是不是足以吸引工人？影响工人选择一个城市的其他因素？其实你的文章中有这条，可是个人认为：一段就批一点，批透！要比多个错误罗列在一起效果要好些。
3。同意flyingwind的观点：expressway是否促进经济的发展？例如：如果成本过高，使经济面临困境？环境破坏，影响外商（外地商人）投资？等等。
纯属个人意见，可以讨论讨论吗！