[分享]argument 163 大家都来批我啊,批死为止啊,暴风猛烈的吹吧

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

Argument163:  450 words   30 minutes
The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.
'In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.'

In the editorial the author claims that a new town hall should replace the older one which is relatively smaller and less energy-efficient to save a considerable amount of money. To support this claim the editorial cites the evidence that some citizens have proposed to do this replacement and such superiority as the less cost to heat the new hall in winter and cool it in summer, the comfortable environment of the new hall and a income by renting out some of the space. However, it is oblivious that there are several flaws in this argument.

Firstly, the editorial has falsely assumed that most of the town people would be positive in the acceleration of the replacement. No such survey has ever been carried out by any individual or group. Thus the assertion that some citizens there have proposed this replacement is weakly supported. Maybe more citizens there would be willing to hold this century-old town because it has become a symbol of this town and this town is just famous for its history along with a witness--its century-old town.

Secondly, considering the save of money is in itself right but the cost of the hall is composed of several factors and usually its very complex. The old structure of this century-old hall might really bring some troubles when we are trying to facilitate the hall with such equipment to heat it in winter and cool it in summer, however, no such information about the higher cost of such fees is provided. It is entirely possible that the new hall is facilitated with even more electrical equipment and to maintain its everyday usage is would cost much more than the old one.

Thirdly, the editorial has overlooked the superiority of the old one in attracting more tourists from other towns or even farther away. They come to this town for fun on their holiday and they would spend much money here. This would undoubtfully strengthen the economy here in several areas and maybe new industry would flourish since then. In contrast, if the old one is replaced by the new one, such impact would disappear.

Finally, the most important is the fees used in the building of the new hall would be a great number and we could never overlook this impact. So, a balance of the maintaining fees of the old hall and the building fees of the new hall should be well evaluated to determine whether it is better that we replace the century-old hall.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. More should be done to strengthen its argument and to better assess it more information is in need.

nora0020UID: 104886

argument 163 大家都来批我啊,批死为止啊,暴风猛烈的吹吧
Argument163: 450 words 30 minutes
The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.
'In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.'

In the editorial the author claims that a new town hall should replace the older one which is relatively【regarded as】 smaller and less energy-efficient to save a considerable amount of money. To support this claim the editorial cites the evidence that some citizens have proposed to do this replacement and such superiority as the less cost to heat the new hall in winter and cool it in summer, the comfortable environment of the new hall and a【an】 income by renting out some of the space. However, it is oblivious that there are several flaws in this argument.【开头比较清晰】

Firstly, the editorial has falsely assumed that most of the town people would be positive in the acceleration of the replacement. No such survey has ever been carried out by any individual or group. Thus the assertion that some citizens there have proposed this replacement is weakly supported. Maybe more citizens there would be willing to hold this century-old town because it has become a symbol of this town and this town is just famous for its history along with a witness--its century-old town.【她说的是some citizens 可能是很少数人，大部分人还是反对这个提议的】

Secondly, considering the save of money is in itself right【ostensibly seems right】 but the cost of the hall is composed of several factors and usually its very complex. The old structure of this century-old hall might really bring some troubles when we are trying to facilitate the hall with such equipment to heat it in winter and cool it in summer, however, no such information about the higher cost of such fees is provided. It is entirely possible that the new hall is facilitated with even more electrical equipment and to maintain its everyday usage is would cost much more than the old one.

Thirdly, the editorial has overlooked the superiority of the old one in attracting more tourists from other towns or even farther away. They come to this town for fun on their holiday and they would spend much money here. This would undoubtfully 【undoubtedly】strengthen the economy here in several areas and maybe new industry would flourish since then. In contrast, if the old one is replaced by the new one, such impact would disappear.

Finally, the most important is the fees used in the building of the new hall would be a great number and we could never overlook this impact. So, a balance of the maintaining fees of the old hall and the building fees of the new hall should be well evaluated to determine whether it is better that we replace the century-old hall.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. More should be done to strengthen its argument and to better assess it more information is in need.
还有几个没有找到，1. accommodate the number of people ,可能不需要再增加更多的人员，所以不需要新的办公楼
2．没有证据说明拆除old 市政府就能save money
3．Costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall，在总的建筑面积上来看可能新的花费更多
其实还有可以自己再考虑考虑
真的觉得A没有什么好说的，就是把逻辑错误都找全了就可以了

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

如果很多错误改怎么处理主次呢?

nora0020UID: 104886

可以把几个错误罗列在一个段落里说，主次的关系就要要分清那个是大前提

hayden001UID: 195385

Argument163: 450 words 30 minutes
The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.
'In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.'
（多谢楼主修改我的文章，我来“报复”啦，呵呵，请指教）
In the editorial the author claims that a new town hall should replace the older one which is relatively smaller and less energy-efficient to save a considerable amount of money. To support this claim the editorial cites the evidence that some citizens have proposed to do this replacement and such superiority as the less cost to heat the new hall in winter and cool it in summer, the comfortable environment of the new hall and a income by renting out some of the space. However, it is oblivious是obvious罢 that there are several flaws in this argument.

Firstly, the editorial has falsely assumed that most of the town people would be positive in the acceleration题目只说replacement,没有谈到加速罢 of the replacement. No such survey has ever been carried out by any individual or group. Thus the assertion that some citizens there have proposed this replacement is weakly supported. Maybe more citizens there would be willing to hold this前面用的there,后面都用this,感觉不太合适，不如换成the罢 century-old townhall because it has become a symbol of this town and this town is just famous for its history along with a witness--its century-old townhall.

Secondly, considering the save-saving- of money is in itself right but the cost of the hall is composed of several factors and usually its-it is- very complex. The old structure of this century-old hall might really bring some troubles when we are trying to facilitate the hall with such equipment to heat it in winter and cool it in summer, however, no such information about the higher cost of such feescost和fee就是一个意思罢，没必要重复，建议把cost of such fees换成expense，因为前面不久刚用过cost-_- is provided. It is entirely possible that the new hall is facilitated with even more electrical equipment and to maintain its everyday usage is would去掉is cost much more than the old one.

Thirdly, the editorial has overlooked the superiority of the old one in attracting more tourists from other towns or even farther away.这个想法挺好。 They come to this town for fun on their holid

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

怎么丢了东西啊

hayden001UID: 195385

Argument163: 450 words 30 minutes
The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.
'In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.'
（多谢楼主修改我的文章，我来“报复”啦，呵呵，请指教）
In the editorial the author claims that a new town hall should replace the older one which is relatively smaller and less energy-efficient to save a considerable amount of money. To support this claim the editorial cites the evidence that some citizens have proposed to do this replacement and such superiority as the less cost to heat the new hall in winter and cool it in summer, the comfortable environment of the new hall and a income by renting out some of the space. However, it is oblivious是obvious罢 that there are several flaws in this argument.

Firstly, the editorial has falsely assumed that most of the town people would be positive in the acceleration题目只说replacement,没有谈到加速罢 of the replacement. No such survey has ever been carried out by any individual or group. Thus the assertion that some citizens there have proposed this replacement is weakly supported. Maybe more citizens there would be willing to hold this前面用的there,后面都用this,感觉不太合适，不如换成the罢 century-old townhall because it has become a symbol of this town and this town is just famous for its history along with a witness--its century-old townhall.

Secondly, considering the save-saving- of money is in itself right but the cost of the hall is composed of several factors and usually its-it is- very complex. The old structure of this century-old hall might really bring some troubles when we are trying to facilitate the hall with such equipment to heat it in winter and cool it in summer, however, no such information about the higher cost of such feescost和fee就是一个意思罢，没必要重复，建议把cost of such fees换成expense，因为前面不久刚用过cost-_- is provided. It is entirely possible that the new hall is facilitated with even more electrical equipment and to maintain its everyday usage is would去掉is cost much more than the old one.

Thirdly, the editorial has overlooked the superiority of the old one in attracting more tourists from other towns or even farther away.这个想法挺好 They come to this town for fun on their holiday and they would spend much money here这句及下行用了两个here，同样和前面的there,this那样不合适，最好不要用这样的代词. This would undoubtfullyundoubtedly strengthen the economy here in several areas and maybe new industry would flourish since then指代何时？. In contrast, if the old one is replaced by the new one, such impact would disappear.此段用几个would推出的结论太武断了

Finally, the most important thing is the feesis和fees不符 used in the building of the new hall would太武断就得出结论了 be a great number and we could never overlook this impact. So, a balance of［between the maintaining fees of the old hall and the building fees of the new hall should be well evaluated to determine whether it is better that we replace the century-old hall这句主句是balance be evaluated搭配不当.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. More should be done to strengthen its指代不明 argument and to better assess这应该用证实、加强之类的词罢 it more information is in needin need不是“需要”的意思啊，换个别的.
整篇错误找得可以，但是在反证时有几次过于武断推出自己的观点，不合适。另外，be/would/fees等用得过于频繁了，建议换换。
另，用那个改文工具改的，复制时漏了一部分，真不好意思。今天补上。

GlaglacierUID: 204412

这么多人帮你改，还嫌不够呀。睡觉去了， 看了你两篇，一篇issue，一篇argu。其实主要还是自己总结啦。

GlaglacierUID: 204412

issue185，argu214。

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

我这两天在看书
没有及时回你们啊
马上考了
我打字比较罩
所以关键在于idea了
这几天就不上了
4。11 南京南大图书馆 8。30