argument157 第一篇，请大家指教，多多帮助

漠北银狐UID: 193717

147 The following is a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. 【157】
"As a local merchant, I wish to support the development of a ski resort in the state park north of our township. Along with many other merchants who favor the proposal by Ski the Slopes, Incorporated, I would, of course, experience a growth in my business. But I also know how much more prosperous, not to mention lively and interesting, our community would be if tourism increased. Since the main opposition comes from a few environmentalists* who do not even live in this community, I see no reason to give in to their views. The First National Bank has finally researched the project and agreed to fund it. As a result, I see no reason to delay development of the resort."
Environmentalists are people who advocate the preservation of the natural environment.

   

   In this argument, the author concludes that they have enough ground to develop a ski resort in the state park north our township. To support his conclusion, the author makes the assumption that if tourism increased the community would be much more prosperous, lively and interesting. Besides the author also state that the merchants who favor the proposal by Ski the Slopes, Incorporated had a growth in their business. Carefully analysis of the argument will reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
   Firstly, the author assumes that there are no relevant difference between the author and other successful merchant. This assumption is clearly mistaken. There is possibly difference between the author and other merchant that for other merchant maybe they have more efficient and effective management or they offer a better investing so that they made a lot of profit. Although the author states that the First National Bank will fund this development, he provides no evidence to show the financial ability of this bank to support the project. The author may not have sufficient fund to make an effective investing, or the author may not have enough managing experience to handle the business, that is to say he may not profit.
   Secondly, the author falsely rests on the gratuitous assumption that the increasing of tourism is the cause of the prosperity and livingness of this community. Although the former coincides with the latter, the author fails to establish a general causal relationship between them. However, although tourism can do have effect on community, without considering other factors --industry, education, population, economy for example, the author cannot draw this conclusion that this is the case. Besides, the author ignores the negative effective of the development. Building a ski resort may damage the living balance of the state park, do harm to animal living around, even residents may suffer a lot. The author cannot draw this conclusion that this is the case.
   Last but not least, the author states that the main opposition comes from a few environmentalists who do not even live in the community, and he saw no reason to give in to their views. To support his view, he assumes that there is no such environmentalist in the community. The author fails to provide enough evidence to firm his unreasonable assumption. It is possible that there are some, but they have not been expressing the opposite opinion yet, or maybe they are doing something to stop this. Next, the author makes the assumption that there is no necessary to care about the suggestion from those who do not live here. It seems reasonable at first glance, but it is groundless. It is possible that those environmentalists who do not live in the community have relatives there, and what they have express is to care about their health and living condition. Besides, maybe the recommendation from these environmentalists will make a positive effect on the resident in the community, and they have rights to protect ecological balance no matter where it is. That is to say it is groundless for the author to overcome these environmentalists.
  To sum up, this argument is not persuasive and convincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument the author would have to demonstrate that he has the same managing ability and investing strength as other successful merchant as to firm that he will profit. The author would also have to show that the ski resort development will not do damage to the living surroundings of the community residents.

漠北银狐UID: 193717

ding

漠北银狐UID: 193717

大家帮忙看看吧

imjasonUID: 176604

感觉你的攻击点对，但是描述的部队啊
我觉得的提纲是
1  没有证据表明生意显然会增长，
2 作者的觉得是对的，但是旅游业一定回增长么？
3 环抱人士的话应该考虑啊，怎么说没有理由去屈服呢，这个作者真操（其实是ets糙了哈哈）
大概是这样吧，菜鸟级别的认识，呵呵

poohUID: 146994

回一下这个帖子:) https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=208286

ryanqUID: 154025

In this argument, the author concludes that they have enough ground to develop a ski resort in the state park north(of) our township. To support his conclusion, the author makes the assumption that if tourism increased the community would be much more prosperous, lively and interesting. Besides the author also state(s) that the merchants who favor the proposal by Ski the Slopes, Incorporated had a growth in their business.(这个是背景，不用说) Carefully analysis of the argument will reveal how groundless the conclusion is.(概括得不好，环境方面的反对和Bank都没说)

Secondly, the author falsely rests on the gratuitous assumption that the increasing of tourism is the cause of the prosperity and livingness of this community. Although(it is possible that) the former coincides with the latter, the author fails to establish a general causal relationship between them(them指代不明，前文没提。这句话前后没有转折关系). However（??）, although tourism can do have effect on community, without considering other factors --industry, education, population, economy for example, the author cannot draw this conclusion that this is the case(这是什么意思？). Besides, the author ignores the negative effective(词性) of the development. Building a ski resort may damage the living balance of the state park,(and) do harm to animal living(不对) around, even residents may suffer a lot. The author cannot draw this conclusion that this is the case(同问).

Last but not least, the author states that the main opposition comes from a few environmentalists who do not even live in the community, and he saw no reason to give in to their views. To support his view, he assumes(这是事实，不是假设) that there is no such environmentalist in the community. The author fails to provide enough evidence to firm his unreasonable assumption.(多余) It is possible that there are some, but they have not been expressing the opposite opinion yet, or maybe they are doing something to stop this. Next, the author makes the assumption that there is no necessary to care about the suggestion from those who do not live here. It seems reasonable at first glance, but it is groundless. It is possible that those environmentalists who do not live in the community have relatives there, and what they have express(ed) is to care about their health and living condition. Besides, maybe the recommendation from these environmentalists will make a positive effect on the resident(s) in the community, and they have rights to protect ecological balance no matter where it is. That is to say it is groundless for the author to overcome these environmentalists.


错误找得很棒，批驳的过程不得要领，多看看范文，注意一下语法，帖之前用word校正一下。共同进步 ;)