argument63 修改以后的版本,大家帮忙看看:)

ivyshoulUID: 195537

63. When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used
park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily
used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed
the park's drop in popularity: the recordings showed an average of only 50
cars per day. In contrast, tiny Carlton Park in the heart of the business
district is visited by more than 150 people on a typical weekday. An
obvious difference is that Carlton Park, unlike Stanley Park, provides
ample seating. Thus, if Stanley Park is ever to be as popular with our
citizens as is Carlton Park, the town will obviously need to provide more
benches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces
suitable for socializing.


By making a comparison of Stanley, the largest in town but less popular park, with Carlton, a small but more popular one, the recommendation for adding more benches in Stanley to raise popularity seems logical. However, though the author seems quite worries about the situation of Stanley, a decline in attractiveness as he/she deems, and wants do something to its good, he/she suffers a lack of comprehensive thinking thus undermine the credibility of the argument.


The premise of the proposal is that Stanley does suffer a dropping popularity recently, nonetheless, the mere video camera records provided in the argument cannot lead strong support to substantiate the assertion. The mere number “50” will not be as meaningful if the author takes into account other alternatives to read it. What is the correspondent statistical data when the park was first put to use, a heavily used period as the author judges? It is possible that there always are few car-visitors to Stanley from the beginning, a fifty is already considerable. Furthermore, the types of these cars and average visitors each car deserve an examination. Perhaps nowadays people like to hold family parties in the park thus they drive larger cars so as to carry more people at one time, while in early times of Stanley, mostly only lovers drove there hence one car just carried two persons. Also, total visitors consist of people other than car-visitors. As mentioned in the argument that Stanley is the largest park in town, so it is quite likely that it’s a place of well-preserved natural beauty. No surprise if the citizens tend to visit it on foot or by pedestrian to protect as well as enjoy the natural beauty. Moreover, accompany with a raising conscience of environment protection these days, it is possible that more and more car-visitors are turning into foot-visitors. If the scenarios ruled out above are true that car-visitors are only a small portion of total-visitors, even if confess that Stanley indeed is facing a turn down of car-visitors, despite a-month is too short a time to make such a big conclusion, (possibly last month is the most harsh one all over the year that people prefer staying at home rather than going out to parks), the assumption that Stanley is losing popularity is still questionable.


Except the already proved presumptuous suspect that Stanley is no longer heavily used that ways to amend it need to be found out, the final suggestion of the arguer relies on another gratuitous believe that Carlton Park, a small park with ample seats, is more popular. Once again, the number “150” cannot make any sense alone. The author seems completely omits the fact that Carlton locates “in the heart of the business district” and also the statistical data is gathered on weekdays. Probably most of the 150 are business people doing walking after lunch while other people in town seldom visit Carlton. Yet again, nor do Carlton popular on weekends even among businessmen, say “weekday-visitors”. In contrast, perhaps thanks to its natural beauty, which is probably the best preserved of all parks in town since Stanley is the largest one, citizens all over the town might be fond of Stanley more than little Carlton. Since the author fails to persuade us that Carlton is more popular, the proposal to learn from it is unfounded back to its origin.


Admit that to learn from Carlton makes sense to some extent, the author’s conclusion—adding benches to turn some of the open areas to socializing places—is what the town should do is somewhat ridiculous. There is no evidence in the argument that people are so fond of the ample seating in Carlton that it is indeed one reason of vital importance why they visit it. There are many alternatives the author fails to consider, including the location of the park, the convenient transportation, its quietness in the very heart of business district and so on. What’s more, the author gives us no information about the specific condition of Stanley. Whether lack of seating is the crucial reason why Stanley is losing visitors, if true. There are other alternatives might contribute to such result that need attention and consideration. Hastily adding more benches without thorough thinking might serve to stain the natural beauty cherished by citizens instead of benefit Stanley.


To sum up, the author fails to rule out strong evident to say that Stanley Park is losing popularity that improvement is needed, nor does he prove that Carlton is popular and people go there because there are ample seats to lead to the conclusion that Stanley Park should add more benches. To make his/her assumption valid, the arguer had better think more carefully and comprehensively.

       
:cool:

dragonflyljUID: 185331

觉得B1,B2都在讲一个问题，似乎说的太多了。你的反驳的确有力，太过有力了，而且很多假设在谈一个问题。所以，B1，B2 最好合1段，或者B1写短一点点。 B3里面可以重点展开一下，不然显得头重脚轻。因为这里还有个错误类比的惯例错误。可以把不适用性详细谈谈比较好。文字挺好的。结构写好一些就很好了我觉得。
不过我是个菜鸟，仅供参考

ivyshoulUID: 195537

嗯...前两段是在讲一个问题么?我自己还觉得分开说好呢,一个人的思维就是有惯性,看來看去都觉得是那么回事.真不知道怎么写短了,总觉得有很多话想说,看见argument就想狠批,前面的段落写多了后面就越写越少,还老是超时.Issue就相反,经常觉得写不出话:(


谢谢dragonfly的指导哦~大家一起努力!