Argument29

妖妖UID: 149770

ARGUMENT 29  When Ida McAllister ran for mayor of Lake City four years ago, she failed to win even 30 percent of the vote. But since then, McAllister has made public her commitment to environmental causes. She would be wise, therefore, to announce her intention to close all Lake City parks to automobile traffic, thus following the example of the former mayor of Plainsville, Alecia Yu . On the recommendation of a small group of concerned citizens, Mayor Yu prohibited automobile traffic in all Plainsville parks, and therefore was credited with solving the pollution problem and improving the quality of life in Plainsville. This action would have great appeal to the citizens of Lake City, most of whom participate in the community's recycling program, and would guarantee McAllister's success in her current quest to be Lake City's new mayor.


In this analysis, the arguer concludes that McAllister will success in her again running for the mayor of Lake City. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that after failing the competition four years ago, McAllister changed her attention on the environment causes by closing all city's parks to automobile traffic.  In addition, he cites the success case of Mayor Yu in another city who improves the quality of life by doing the same thing to strengthen the view. The argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions。

In the first place, analogies draw between Lake City and Plainsville are highly suspect because there are many serious differences. While we are informed that the former mayor of Plainsville enhanced the quality of life by limiting automobile traffic in all parks in the city, the author fails to make clear the serious environment problems, especial the automobile traffic problems, in Lake City, as well as these in Plainsville. If only total automobile in Plainsville greatly overload its communication burden while the condition in Lake City is much better for the latter have more advanced transport system than the former. In this case, the try McAllister do to the parks has nothing to rising the percent of voter in her new bid. Again, what Mayor Yu done is supported by some part of concerned citizens. So it is possible the same policy was totally opposed without the necessary survey among the citizens. In the absence of all this information, it is undoubted for us to evaluate the environment policy adopted by the potential candidate.

In the second place, the author generalizes too hastily. Even if the environment problem in Lake City has been proved as the same condition as Plainsville, which is , of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not provide more details about Lake City. As we all know, the success voting depends on several major factors other than one policy in environment. For instance, citizens are generally concerned about the income, all kinds of welfare such as pension, medical care system, education and so on. Besides, the arguer also neglects an important information concerning why McAlister failed to even 30 percent of the vote last time. Unless the whole situation changed greatly during the four years or the candidate finds the cause of losing voters, both of which are unknown from this argument, there is no guarantee that she will win next time. Actually, the case about prohibiting automobile in parks emphasized by the arguer as the efficacious way to increase the support of citizens would probably turn out to be misleading.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the policy proposed by
McAlister and the success of her vote in the next time. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to improve more evidence about the environment condition in Lake City and what the citizens most care in their life. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the cause of losing major voter last time.

本来用30分钟写了300个字不到:(,,后来又用了3个钟头改成这个样子.还没有敢写ISSUE,,先拿几个ARGUMENT练习一下.3月10号就要考了.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

妖妖也考啊
嘿嘿
我占一个
明天改

jorgeUID: 108878

恩。先睡觉。

DriverEntryUID: 143979

the author fails to make clear the serious environment problems, especial the automobile traffic problems, in Lake City, as well as these in Plainsville.
这句看着比较费劲，AS WELL AS改成 ARE THE SAME AS 好些吧？

If only total automobile in Plainsville greatly overload its communication burden while the condition in Lake City is much better for the latter have more advanced transport system than the former.
这句可以加几个逗号，否则读着比较痛苦，那么多分句联在一起。


the try McAllister do to the parks 不如改成McAllister's new policy about the parket.

has nothing to rising the percent of voter in her new bid 这里的HAS NOTHING TO RISING 读着比较奇怪。可以这么用么？

后面没看了，感觉思路还可以，表达上最好再提高些。GOOD LUCK

妖妖UID: 149770

谢谢楼上的,等戴楼上的楼上的和楼上的楼上的楼上的修改:)

还有大家的修改:)

鬼谷子UID: 159645

No.1 Argument29
ARGUMENT 29 When Ida McAllister ran for mayor of Lake City four years ago, she failed to win even 30 percent of the vote. But since then, McAllister has made public her commitment to environmental causes. She would be wise, therefore, to announce her intention to close all Lake City parks to automobile traffic, thus following the example of the former mayor of Plainsville, Alecia Yu . On the recommendation of a small group of concerned citizens, Mayor Yu prohibited automobile traffic in all Plainsville parks, and therefore was credited with solving the pollution problem and improving the quality of life in Plainsville. This action would have great appeal to the citizens of Lake City, most of whom participate in the community's recycling program, and would guarantee McAllister's success in her current quest to be Lake City's new mayor.


In this analysis, the arguer concludes that McAllister will success in her again running for the mayor of Lake City. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that after failing the competition【the failure in competition 感觉好点】four years ago, McAllister changed her attention on 【to？】the environment causes by closing all city's parks to automobile traffic. In addition, he cites the success case of Mayor Yu in another city who improves the quality of life by doing the same thing to strengthen the view. The argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions。【restate的太多，而你真正的观点只有一句，而且不是很完整，应该说是题目是错误的，因为it is fraught with…… 可能对于argument来说，开头总是需要部分的restate，或者说，这样的开头更好写。但是，最重要的在于你的观点是什么，或者是你大概的反驳内容ABC都应该在开头表现的。所以，就算是要restate，尽量简洁，然后，多给自己的观点放些笔墨】

In the first place, analogies draw between Lake City and Plainsville are highly suspect because there are many serious differences. While we are informed that the former mayor of Plainsville enhanced the quality of life by limiting automobile traffic in all parks in the city, the author fails to make clear the serious environment problems, especial the automobile traffic problems, in Lake City, as well as these in Plainsville. 【这句说的含糊，要弄清什么问题，应该是要弄清两城间的差异】 If only total automobile in Plainsville greatly overload its communication burden while the condition in Lake City is much better for the latter have more advanced transport system than the former. 【你是想说如果在这样的情况下吗？为什么用if only呢？】In this case, the try McAllister do to the parks has nothing to rising【病句】 the percent of voter in her new bid. Again, what Mayor Yu done is supported by some part of concerned citizens. So it is possible the same policy was totally opposed without the necessary survey among the citizens. In the absence of all this information, it is undoubted for us to evaluate the environment policy adopted by the potential candidate. 【前半段写的不好，表达的不清楚，逻辑不是很清晰，应该说，作者没有给出证据来说明两城的空气，环境，交通，车辆，居民情况是否完全相同，如果不是完全相同的话，P城的例子就不一定能使用于L城。而且，从逻辑上来说，我觉得这个逻辑漏洞应该放在后面说，先反驳前提】

In the second place, the author generalizes too hastily. Even if the environment problem in Lake City has been proved as the same condition as Plainsville, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it 【指什么？】does not provide more details about Lake City. 【一般用even if都是说即使这个成立了，那个也不一定成立。你这里是，即使两城情况相同，我们也没有更多的详细资料？？思路不清啊】 As we all know, the success voting depends on several major factors other than one policy in environment. 【看到这里才明白你要说什么，是说有其他因素，那么你前面就应该说作者没有rule out 其他的可能性，因素啊什么的】 For instance, citizens are generally concerned about the income, all kinds of welfare such as pension, medical care system, education and so on. Besides, the arguer also neglects an important information concerning why McAlister failed to even 30 percent of the vote last time. Unless the whole situation changed greatly during the four years or the candidate finds the cause of losing voters, both of which are unknown from this argument, there is no guarantee that she will win next time. Actually, the case about prohibiting automobile in parks emphasized by the arguer as the efficacious way to increase the support of citizens would probably turn out to be misleading.
【你没有看到题目的community's recycling program的问题，没有对此反驳，这个其实应该是题目结论的前提，就是据此作者才认为人们关心环保，然后才认为限制汽车的方法可行】

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the policy proposed by
McAlister and the success of her vote in the next time. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to improve more evidence about the environment condition in Lake City and what the citizens most care in their life. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the cause of losing major voter last time.



【我觉得你还是应该再研究一下argument的范文，还有imong关于argument的三篇文章，然后再写。现在感觉你对于argument的写法还不是很熟悉。逻辑上表达上argument语言思路运用上面还有很多问题。加油吧！】

jackey737UID: 149062

感觉楼主对每个都挖掘的比较深（赞一个！！！）
但做好是再多找一个错误：
比如说"a small group of concerned citizens" 这里有问题。一少部分人的意见不能代表所有人的观点－－－不具有代表性。 很有可能Alecia Yu 当选的原因并不是PARK的问题。

另外，楼主的有些语言读起来比较费劲啊！！！（也许是好事，更像老美了吧，^_^哈哈哈）。

妖妖UID: 149770

鬼~~~

无它~~~

汗流浃背~~~

明天继续上来发文和改文~~~

jorgeUID: 108878

鬼。

妖妖叫的好亲热啊。:o