Argument16 好几天没写了，学习总结了一下。老规矩，拍我者，决不惯着，肯定回拍

fengboallanUID: 157405

可以说是第一篇argument。本来准备一天写一篇issue一篇argument。今天是在没精力写I了。帮我看看我的A吧。用了很多模版的句子。帮我挑挑毛病。多谢了，拍我者，最快时间回拍。说话算话！

6 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia. 【16】
"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."
两年前我们相邻的州Lucria开展了州际彩票活动来增加用于教育和公共医疗的财政收入。现在，Lucria对于每个小学生的平均开支比我们多，Lucria的公共医疗体系接待的人数也比我们的多很多。如果我们也建立一套和Lucria类似的彩票系统，其盈利可以被用来改善我们的教育系统和公共医疗体系。新的彩票无疑会成功，因为在我们的首府举办的一次调查显示Impecuni的居民每人每年用于博彩的平均支出已经达到$50。

Citing our neighboring state Lucria began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health，the arguer draws the conclusion that their state should do the same thing in order to improve their education system and public health program。This argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at the first glance, however, the editor's argument relies on a series of unproven assumption and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the argument assumes that today Lucria’ public health program treats far more people than our state's. The editorial observes a correlation between Lucria's lottery tax and its public health, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the editorial fails to rule out other possible explanations for the progress of Lucria's public health program. For example, Lucria's economy is better. There were more excellent enterprises to profit tax revenues. Also, maybe the population of Lucria is more than us. Of course, it should treat more people than our program. Any of these factors, or other social, political or economic factors, might lead to the result that Lucria's program treats more people than ours.

Even if we establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, it is unfairly to assume that the lottery tax revenues can improve our educational and public health program. It is entirely possible that the lottery is not as hot as it in Lucria. Maybe not every citizen would like to pay the same amount of money for gambling. It is also possible that the management of lottery is not as good as Lucria. If advertisement and other rules did not catch up with the development of lottery, the boom is a flash in the pan. Without ruling out these and other reasons, why the editor suggested we should copy the program of Lucria.

Cites the Observer survey in which our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling. However, the editorial fails to provide any information about the survey population. Perhaps the citizens in country are not as interested as people in their capital city in gambling. Or perhaps the survey was operated 5 or 10 years ago. It doesn't show the time period of the survey. Or perhaps, people prefer other kind of gambling to lottery. In short, it is fallacious to conclude that people in Impecunia are interested in lottery
the same as Lucria. Even editor could not convince us that the new lottery would doubtless be successful.

In sum, the argument is dubious one that relies on a series of unproven assumptions- about Impecunia;s demographics, the reasons for the success of the progress of Lucria's education and public health system。To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide better evidence that lottery in Impecunia is as boom as it in Lucria and it really may profit educaiton and public heath system。Even this additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument, I would need to know how many reasons of Lucria's progress in public health system, whether lottery tax is the main reason, and detail informations of lottery survey in Impecunia.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

献吻

鬼谷子UID: 159645

No.1 Argument16 好几天没写了，学习总结了一下。老规矩，拍我者，决不惯着，肯定回拍
可以说是第一篇argument。本来准备一天写一篇issue一篇argument。今天是在没精力写I了。帮我看看我的A吧。用了很多模版的句子。帮我挑挑毛病。多谢了，拍我者，最快时间回拍。说话算话！

6 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia. 【16】
"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."
两年前我们相邻的州Lucria开展了州际彩票活动来增加用于教育和公共医疗的财政收入。现在，Lucria对于每个小学生的平均开支比我们多，Lucria的公共医疗体系接待的人数也比我们的多很多。如果我们也建立一套和Lucria类似的彩票系统，其盈利可以被用来改善我们的教育系统和公共医疗体系。新的彩票无疑会成功，因为在我们的首府举办的一次调查显示Impecuni的居民每人每年用于博彩的平均支出已经达到$50。

Citing our neighboring state Lucria began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health，【作者还用了一个证据a survey conducted in our capital city，我觉得也应该提到】 the arguer draws the conclusion that their state should do the same thing in order to improve their education system and public health program。This argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at the first glance, however, the editor's argument relies on a series of unproven assumption and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. 【开头清晰，不过模板化】

To begin with, the argument assumes that today Lucria’ public health program treats far more people than our state's. 【这个TS你想说什么？我觉得这个是不能反驳的assumption，是事实。要反驳应该反驳public health program 的进步是彩票带来的这个assumption】The editorial observes a correlation between Lucria's lottery tax and its public health, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. 【你确实是这么反驳的，那么你的TS是笔误？】 However, the editorial fails to rule out other possible explanations for the progress of Lucria's public health program. For example, Lucria's economy is better. There were more excellent enterprises to profit tax revenues. Also, maybe the population of Lucria is more than us. Of course, it should 【这个不是should的问题，我觉得是can的问题】treat more people than our program. Any of these factors, or other social, political or economic factors, might lead to the result that Lucria's program treats more people than ours.
【Lucria spends more per pupil than we do这个你没有提到啊，如果你不想另起一段写以这个漏洞，你可以跟上一段放在一起的，教育健康的提高都不一定是彩票引起的】

Even if we establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, it is unfairly to assume that the lottery tax revenues can improve our educational and public health program. It is entirely possible that the lottery is not as hot as it in Lucria. Maybe not every citizen would like to pay the same amount of money for gambling. It is also possible that the management of lottery is not as good as Lucria. If advertisement and other rules did not catch up with the development of lottery, the boom is a flash in the pan. 【昙花一现？好用法！】 Without ruling out these and other reasons, why the editor suggested we should copy the program of Lucria. 【后面这个问句不好，应该给出一个肯定的结论】
【这段写的可以，但是我觉得应该放在后面才对，顺序问题】

Cites the Observer survey in which our capital city concludes that 【这个地方没太懂】citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling. However, the editorial fails to provide any information about the survey population. 【你是想说样本问题吗？最好是说样本够不够大，够不够随机random】 Perhaps the citizens in country are not as interested as people in their capital city in gambling. Or perhaps the survey was operated 5 or 10 years ago. It doesn't show the time period of the survey. Or perhaps, people prefer other kind of gambling to lottery. In short, it is fallacious to conclude that people in Impecunia are interested in lottery the same as Lucria. 【这里有问题，这段你在说明的应该是survey不能说明I州人愿意去买彩票，或者进一步的，彩票在I州能赚钱，而不是说明和L州的对比】Even editor could not convince us that the new lottery would doubtless be successful. 【这句的总结又有点太大了，似乎在总结全文了】

In sum, the argument is dubious one 【a dubious one】that relies on a series of unproven assumptions- about Impecunia;s demographics【？？】, the reasons for the success of the progress of Lucria's education and public health system。To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide better evidence that lottery in Impecunia is as boom as it in Lucria and it really may profit educaiton 【education检查啊】and public heath system。Even this additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument, I would need to know how many reasons【这个太罗嗦了，“你告诉我有多少原因，彩票是不是最重要的”，你直接说“要rule out其他的可能性”就可以了】 of Lucria's progress in public health system, whether lottery tax is the main reason, and detail informations【不可数，检查！】 of lottery survey in Impecunia.
【结尾有点罗嗦，说来说去，有些东西是重复的，简洁一点】
【文章主要的问题就是顺序的问题，B2应该在B3后面，因为B2的内容是作者最后的结论，B1B3的内容是作者的前提，应该先反驳了前提，最后反驳结论的。其他的问题不大，还有就是尽量把模板的语言换成自己的语言，加油！】

hanyuxingUID: 173529

Citing our neighboring state Lucria began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health，the arguer draws the conclusion that their state should do the same thing in order to improve their education system and public health program。（原文是不是在叙述详细些有时间的话）This argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at the first glance, however, the editor's argument relies on a series of unproven assumption and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.（我觉得开头再多用点连接性的词）（不需要把自己当作那的人吧）

To begin with, the argument assumes that today Lucria’ public health program treats far more people than our state's. The editorial observes a correlation between Lucria's lottery tax and its public health, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the editorial fails to rule out other possible explanations for the progress of Lucria's public health program. For example, Lucria's economy is better. There were more excellent enterprises to profit tax revenues. Also, maybe the population of Lucria is more than us. Of course, it should treat more people than our program. Any of these factors, or other social, political or economic factors, might lead to the result that Lucria's program treats more people than ours.（还可以说一个比另一个更重视教育医疗）

Even if we establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, it is unfairly to assume that the lottery tax revenues can improve our educational and public health program. It is entirely possible that the lottery is not as hot as it in Lucria. Maybe not every citizen would like to pay the same amount of money for gambling. It is also possible that the management of lottery is not as good as Lucria. If advertisement and other rules did not catch up with the development of lottery, the boom is a flash in the pan. Without ruling out these and other reasons, why the editor suggested we should copy the program of Lucria. (好象用次有时不是很地道)

Cites （可以用多样话的词  Offer, provid..）the Observer survey in which our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling. However, the editorial fails to provide any information about the survey population. Perhaps the citizens in country are not as interested as people in their capital city in gambling. Or perhaps the survey was operated 5 or 10 years ago. （有时说太具体感觉不好吧）It doesn't show the time period of the survey. Or perhaps, people prefer other kind of gambling to lottery. In short, it is fallacious to conclude that people in Impecunia are interested in lottery
the same as Lucria. Even editor could not convince us that the new lottery would doubtless be successful.

In sum, the argument is dubious one that relies on a series of unproven assumptions- about Impecunia;s demographics, the reasons for the success of the progress of Lucria's education and public health system。To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide better evidence that lottery in Impecunia is as boom as it in Lucria and it really may profit educaiton and public heath system。Even this additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument, I would need to know how many reasons of Lucria's progress in public health system, whether lottery tax is the main reason, and detail informations of lottery survey in Impecunia.（结尾不错）

fengboallanUID: 157405

多谢鬼谷子和hanyuxing的热情批改，问题小弟已经记下了。迫不得已，Argument必须用模版了了。这是第一次与模版的亲密接触，估计以后能融会贯通一下。多谢二位！

fengboallanUID: 157405

修改了以下。呵呵


6 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia. 【16】
"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."
两年前我们相邻的州Lucria开展了州际彩票活动来增加用于教育和公共医疗的财政收入。现在，Lucria对于每个小学生的平均开支比我们多，Lucria的公共医疗体系接待的人数也比我们的多很多。如果我们也建立一套和Lucria类似的彩票系统，其盈利可以被用来改善我们的教育系统和公共医疗体系。新的彩票无疑会成功，因为在我们的首府举办的一次调查显示Impecuni的居民每人每年用于博彩的平均支出已经达到$50。
分析：
Citing our neighboring state Lucria began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health，the arguer draws the conclusion that their state should do the same thing in order to improve their education system and public health program。This argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at the first glance, however, the editor's argument relies on a series of unproven assumption and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the argument assumes that today the progress of Lucria’ public health and education is because of lottery. The editorial observes a correlation between Lucria's lottery tax and its public health and educaution, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the editorial fails to rule out other possible explanations for the progress of Lucria's public health program and education. For example, Lucria's economy is better. There were more excellent enterprises to profit tax revenues. Also, maybe the population of Lucria is more than us. Of course, it can treat more people than our program. Any of these factors, or other social, political or economic factors, might lead to the result that Lucria's program treats more people than ours.

Cites the Observer survey in which our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling. However, the editorial fails to provide any information about the survey population. Perhaps the citizens in country are not as interested as people in their capital city in gambling. Or perhaps the survey was operated 5 or 10 years ago. It doesn't show the time period of the survey. Or perhaps, people prefer other kind of gambling to lottery. In short, it is fallacious to conclude that people in Impecunia can buy lottery as many as Lucria. Even editor could not convince us that the lottery program in Impecunia would doubtless be as popular as it in Lucria.


Even if we establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, it is unfairly to assume that the lottery tax revenues can improve our educational and public health program. It is entirely possible that the lottery is not as hot as it in Lucria. Maybe not every citizen would like to pay the same amount of money for gambling. It is also possible that the management of lottery is not as good as Lucria. If advertisement and other rules did not catch up with the development of lottery, the boom is a flash in the pan. Without ruling out these and other reasons, why the editor suggested we should copy the program of Lucria.


In sum, the argument is a dubious one that relies on a series of unproven assumptions- about Impecunia’s demographics, the reasons for the success of the progress of Lucria's education and public health system。To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide better evidence that lottery in Impecunia is as boom as it in Lucria and it really may profit education and public heath system。Even this additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument, I would need to rule out other possibility, whether lottery tax is the main reason, and detail information of lottery survey in Impecunia.

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

呵呵，想拍你，看你最近写了这个argument，我先占个座，有两位已经先给你拍过，我水平有限哦~~~

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

6 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia. 【16】
"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."
两年前我们相邻的州Lucria开展了州际彩票活动来增加用于教育和公共医疗的财政收入。现在，Lucria对于每个小学生的平均开支比我们多，Lucria的公共医疗体系接待的人数也比我们的多很多。如果我们也建立一套和Lucria类似的彩票系统，其盈利可以被用来改善我们的教育系统和公共医疗体系。新的彩票无疑会成功，因为在我们的首府举办的一次调查显示Impecuni的居民每人每年用于博彩的平均支出已经达到$50。
分析：
Citing our neighboring state Lucria began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health，the arguer draws the conclusion that their state should do the same thing in order to improve their education system and public health program。This argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at the first glance, however, the editor's argument relies on a series of unproven assumption and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the argument assumes that today the progress of Lucria’ public health and education is because of lottery. The editorial observes a correlation between Lucria's lottery tax and its public health and educaution, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the editorial fails to rule out other possible explanations for the progress of Lucria's public health program and education. For example, Lucria's economy is better. There were more excellent enterprises to profit tax revenues. Also, maybe the population of Lucria is more than us. Of course, it can treat more people than our program.（人口问题并不很有说服力，建议换一个factor） Any of these factors, or other social, political or economic factors, might lead to the result that Lucria's program treats more people than ours.

Cites the Observer survey in which our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling. However, the editorial fails to provide any information about the survey population. Perhaps the citizens in country are not as interested as people in their capital city in gambling. Or perhaps the survey was operated 5 or 10 years ago. It doesn't show the time period of the survey. Or perhaps, people prefer other kind of gambling to lottery. In short, it is fallacious to conclude that people in Impecunia can buy lottery as many as Lucria. Even editor could not convince us that the lottery program in Impecunia would doubtless be as popular as it in Lucria. （这段我觉得挺充分的）


Even if we establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, it is unfairly to assume that the lottery tax revenues can improve our educational and public health program. It is entirely possible that the lottery is not as hot as it in Lucria. Maybe not every citizen would like to pay the same amount of money for gambling. It is also possible that the management of lottery is not as good as Lucria. If advertisement and other rules did not catch up with the development of lottery, the boom is a flash in the pan. Without ruling out these and other reasons, why the editor suggested we should copy the program of Lucria.（也蛮充分的）


In sum, the argument is a dubious one that relies on a series of unproven assumptions- about Impecunia’s demographics, the reasons for the success of the progress of Lucria's education and public health system。To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide better evidence that lottery in Impecunia is as boom as it in Lucria and it really may profit education and public heath system。Even this additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument, I would need to rule out other possibility, whether lottery tax is the main reason, and detail information of lottery survey in Impecunia.
（楼主修改得蛮好的，我能够提供的意见不多，加油~~~）