请大家给点意见！谢谢！3。30就考了

kkygrace24UID: 183615

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Impercunia should begin a state lottery to improve the educational system and public health program. Two evidences from Lucria and a survey conducted in Impercunia capital city are used to support the conclusion. However, the argument is weak because the argument depends on several unwarranted assumption.

First of all, the arguer unwarranted assumes that the money which the government of Lucria used to improve the educational system and public health program is from the lottery incomes. But no evidence is provided to support that this is the case. Maybe Lucria has many other ways to make money, such  as tourism, business, industry and other related field. In addition, the government of Lucria might take education and public health seriously. We also cannot exclude the possibility that the education and public health conditions are very poor, the government has to spend some money in improving the conditions. In short, there are many reasons lead the increasing costs of educational system and public health program not only because of the lottery.

Secondly, the residents of Impecunia who don not live in the capital city might be not willing to spend money on lottery. The lottery which is only one kind of gambling might not be popular in Impecunia; Law are different in different states, lottery might violate the law of Impecunia. Without considering such problems any analogy between Lucria and Impecunia is premature, and any conclusion based on that analogy is unjustified.

Thirdly, the argument depends on an unwarranted assumption that the public health and education need improvement. Maybe the public health condition and the level of education in Impecunia are far more better than that in Lucria. Moreover, the arguer fails to mention the costs of establishing a state lottery,  this program might not be profitable. The result of the survey is problematic. The sample of the survey is too small which is only the people who live in the capital, it is not representative.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To be a better argument, the arguer must demonstrate that lottery will surly be profitable. To strengthen it, the arguer also needs to compare the interests of residents in Lucria and Impecunia.

kkygrace24UID: 183615

我自己顶以下

situhuiziUID: 160284

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Impercunia should begin a state lottery to improve the educational system and public health program. Two evidences from Lucria and a survey conducted in Impercunia capital city are used to support the conclusion. However, the argument is weak because the argument depends on several unwarranted assumption.

First of all, the arguer unwarranted(unwarrantedly) assumes that the money which the government of Lucria used to improve the educational system and public health program is from the lottery incomes. But no evidence is provided to support that this is the case. Maybe Lucria has many other ways to make money, such as tourism, business, industry and other related field(fields). In addition, the government of Lucria might take education and public health seriously. We also cannot exclude the possibility that the education and public health conditions are very poor, the government has to spend some money in improving the conditions. In short, there are many reasons lead the increasing costs of educational system and public health program not only because of the lottery. (感觉这句话读起来不是很通顺，建议换种说法)

Secondly, the residents of Impecunia who don(do) not live in the capital city might be not willing to spend money on lottery. The lottery, which is only one kind of gambling might not be popular in Impecunia; Law are different in different states, lottery might violate the law of Impecunia. Without considering such problems(,)any analogy between Lucria and Impecunia is premature, and any conclusion based on that analogy is unjustified.

Thirdly, the argument depends on an unwarranted assumption that the public health and education need improvement. Maybe the public health condition and the level of education in Impecunia are far more better(much better) than that in Lucria. Moreover, the arguer fails to mention the costs of establishing a state lottery,(;) this program might not be profitable. The result of the survey is problematic. The sample of the survey is too small which is only the people who live in the capital, it is not representative.(我觉得这里用too……to结构比较好)

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To be a better argument, the arguer must demonstrate that lottery will surly be profitable. To strengthen it, the arguer also needs to compare the interests of residents in Lucria and Impecunia.

总的来说不错，有些小错误需要改正下~呵呵~加油哦！还有就是下次发文章的时候最好把原文一起发上来，这篇文章我好象没有看过，所以只能知道个大概意思！不是很清楚你把重要错误找完没有~

kkygrace24UID: 183615

呵呵