argument16 我的第一篇，请帮忙：）

wildUID: 189262

------题目------
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia.
'Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling.'
------正文------
According to the arguer’s opinion, because our neighboring state, Lucria, set a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health, it seems get an improvement in these two fields. After carefully thinking, problems can be deducted from the consequence. Although the reasons are given to the arguer’s point of view that our state should establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria to gather money for education system and public health program, there is still fallacies among the analysis besides the frangibility of the reasons.

First of all, Lucria spends more on education and it's public health program treats more people than our state's may not result from the lottery. These phenomena are more likely caused by other rational factors such as the financial income, the more emphasizing by the state government, or the certain education and health condition of Lucria. The different treatments of the health program maybe just because Lucria has more unhealthy people. In a word, the income of the state may not the main reason of their seems better treatment in education and health, not to say money gotten by lottery. After all, lottery can only attribute little to one state's income. There are still many other more important ways to get money.

More over maybe the compare between the two states is not appropriate. It is undoubtedly that the condition of the two states are not the same. The form of the entertainment of the people in the two places maybe totally different. Although there is a survey conducted in the capital city of our state shows the citizens there spend some money on gambling, the support is not strong enough. First, the survey is only taken in one city of the state, not even one sample is supplied at other parts. It is possible that the conditions of different places are various, especially, the city took the survey is the capital. In most times, the economy condition of the capital is better than other places, so the people spend more money on gambling is usual. And that, gambling is not only in the form of lottery. Maybe most people under the survey just like playing cards or gambling odds.

In a word the reason given to support the editor's view is not sufficient. The argument is neither logically sound nor persuasive. To better bolster and strengthen the argument, the arguer need to guarantee us that the lottery acts an important part as the supporting element to education and public health; and the survey should be not only held in our whole state, but also representative.  Without more convincing evidence, we can not get the conclusion as the arguer does.

bcomerUID: 182621

According to the arguer’s opinion, because our neighboring state, Lucria, set a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health, it seems get（不大对？两个动词？） an improvement in these two fields. After carefully thinking, problems can be deducted from the consequence. Although the reasons are given to（from？） the arguer’s point of view that our state should establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria to gather money for education system and public health program, there is（are？） still fallacies among the analysis besides the frangibility of the reasons.

First of all, Lucria spends more on education and it's（its？） public health program treats more people than our state's may not result from the lottery. These phenomena are more likely caused by other rational factors such as the financial income, the more emphasizing by the state government, or the certain education and health condition of Lucria. The different treatments of the health program maybe just because Lucria has more unhealthy people. In a word, the income of the state may not the main reason of their seems（？） better treatment in education and health, not to say money gotten by lottery. After all, lottery can only attribute little to one state's income. There are still many other more important ways to get money.

More over（moreover？） maybe the compare between the two states is not appropriate. It is undoubtedly that the condition of the two states are （is？）not the same. The form of the entertainment of the people in the two places maybe（？没有动词？） totally different. Although there is a survey conducted in the capital city of our state shows the citizens there spend some money on gambling, the support is not strong enough. First, the survey is only taken in one city of the state, not even one sample is supplied at other parts. It is possible that the conditions of different places are various, especially, the city took the survey is the capital. In most times, the economy condition of the capital is better than other places, so the people spend more money on gambling is usual. And that, gambling is not only in the form of lottery. Maybe most people under the survey just like playing cards or gambling odds.

In a word（，） the reason given to support the editor's view is not sufficient. The argument is neither logically sound nor persuasive. To better bolster and strengthen the argument（to bolster and strengthen the argument better？可能你说的也很好，我没见过，很想知道TO BETTER……这么说可以吗？）, the arguer need to guarantee us that the lottery acts an important part as the supporting element to education and public health; and the survey should be not only held in our whole state, but also representative. Without more convincing evidence, we can not get the conclusion as the arguer does.

只是改了改语法上我看着不是很正确的地方：）
觉得你的挺好的：） :)

改的有误的地方还请指出，让我学习学习：）
还有to better bolster and strengthen the argument可以这么说吗？探讨中，等待回答ING

wildUID: 189262

非常感谢你的修改意见！：）
to better bolster and strengthen the argument的说法应该是可以的，不过我觉得你改的那种语序更好！：）
让我们共同进步！

flyingwindUID: 189320

开头罗嗦，象你这样开头的起码中间要写3个body吧，况且你的2个body展开的不够好
“It is undoubtedly that the condition of the two states are not the same. ”你不觉得有问题吗？你知道这2个城市undoubtedly不一样吗？只能说它们很有可能不一样吧？后面又说“the people in the two places maybe totally different”，矛盾啊
body2里面你把2个逻辑错误搞在一起了，不如把，survy的错误单独列段body3
结尾同样冗长，不是说不可以，中间这么少就是不好！
语法问题很多。

“to better bolster and strengthen the argument可以这么说吗？探讨中，等待回答ING”，
可以这样说，至少从语法上来看，虽然我不喜欢。