arguement29 决战830

BKRL1234UID: 2127835

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.
当Ida McAllister在四年前竞选Lake City市的市长的时候，她失败了，甚至未能赢得30％的选票。但从那以后，McAllister公开了她对环境事业的支持。因而，如果她宣布她将会让Lake City所有公园禁止汽车通行的话将会是十分明智的，这里有Plainsville前市长Alecia Yu的先例。在一小群关注该问题的市的建议下，Yu市长在Plainsville的所有公园都禁止汽车通行，因而被称赞为解决了Plainsville的污染问题和提高了生活质量。这一行动对于Lake City的市将会有极大吸引力，这些市大部分参加了社区循环再生项目，也会保证McAllister在这次市长竞选中获得成。
提纲：
P的这样做不表示在LC适用
人们参加这些回收，不一定会支持
即使支持，也不表示M一定当选。
The author points out that McAllister(M) would close all Lake City(LC) parks to automobile traffic.The author also cites Alecia Yu(A) ,the former mayor of Plainsville(P),prohibited automobile traffic in all P parks, and therefore was credited with solving the pollution problem and improving the quality of life in P.The author reasons that the action would have great appeal to the citizens of LC,because most citizens of LC  participate in the community ‘s recycling program.On the basis of the line of reasoning, the author concludes that citizens of LC would guarantee M’s success in her current quest to be LC’s new mayor.The argument contains several logical flaws ,which render its convincing.
A threshold problem with the argument is the author assumes that the successful of A can be repeated in LC by M. The author overlooks the different character between A and M. The author also overlooks the different environment between P and LC.For instance , perhaps A is the expert of public traffic and built several new underground parks. Or perhaps P consists of several islands. Therefore ,it might be the case that the citizens of LC has far more cars than the citizens of P. Hence, to close all LC parks to automobile traffic might not fit to LC.Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the author’s evidence that M prohibited automobile traffic in all P parks and therefore was credited with solving the pollution problem and improving the quality of life in P.
   Secondly ,the author unfairly assumes that the prohibit-action would have great appeal to the citizens of LC.Although most of the LC citizens participate in the community’s recycling program, no evidence has been offered to establish a causal relationship between the two events. As mentioned in the argument ,the prohibit-action and recycling program are two distinct methods to protect our environment. The prohibit-action will affect some one’s facility while the recycling program would not. For example, the certain citizen who lives around the parks will entirely oppose the prohibit-action. If so, the author’s line of reasoning that the citizens of LC,most of whom participate in the community’s recycling program,would support the prohibit-action  will be weaken.
  Finally ,even assuming that the successful of prohibit-action in P can be repeated in LC and this action have great appeal to the citizens of LC.The conclusion that the action would guarantee M’s success in her current quest to be LC’s new mayor remains questionable. The standard of a mayor consist of a myriad of factors.Only the commitment to environmental causes is far from enough, The author rarely provides the evidence to support the conclusion. Unless  the author could rule out the alternative explanation ,the conclusion is unconvincing.
   In sum,the argument.while seems logical at first,has several logical flaws as discuss above.The argument could be improve by providing the evidence that the success of prohibit-action in P can also be attained in LC . The argument could be further improve by provide the causal relationship between prohibit-action and recycling program or more information about M.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-18 at 11:12 ]

nanziUID: 2126362

The author points out that McAllister(M) would close all Lake City(LC) parks to automobile traffic. The author also cites Alecia Yu(A) , the former mayor of Plainsville(P), prohibited automobile traffic in all P parks, and therefore was credited with solving the pollution problem and improving the quality of life in P. The author reasons that the action would have great appeal to the citizens of LC, because most citizens of LC  participate in the community ‘s recycling program. On the basis of the line of reasoning, the author concludes that citizens of LC would guarantee M’s success in her current quest to be LC’s new mayor. The argument contains several logical flaws ,which render its convincing(convincing是形容词，应改为validity之类).
A threshold problem with the argument is the author assumes that the successful of A can be repeated in LC by M. The author overlooks the different character between A and M. The author also overlooks the different environment between P and LC. For instance , perhaps A is the expert of public traffic and built several new underground parks. Or perhaps P consists of several islands. Therefore ,it might be the case that the citizens of LC has far more cars than the citizens of P. Hence, to close all LC parks to automobile traffic might not fit to LC. Either（应该用any of the吧） scenario（scenarios）, if true, would serve to undermine the author’s evidence that M prohibited automobile traffic in all P parks and therefore was credited with solving the pollution problem and improving the quality of life in P.
   Secondly ,the author unfairly assumes that the prohibit-action would have great appeal to the citizens of LC. Although most of the LC citizens participate in the community’s recycling program, no evidence has been offered to establish a causal relationship between the two events. As mentioned in the argument ,the prohibit-action and recycling program are two distinct methods to protect our environment. The prohibit-action will affect some one’s facility while the recycling program would not. For example, the certain citizen who lives around the parks will entirely oppose the prohibit-action. If so, the author’s line of reasoning that the citizens of LC, most of whom participate in the community’s recycling program, would support the prohibit-action  will be weaken.
  Finally ,even assuming that the successful (success) of prohibit-action in P can be repeated in LC and this action have great appeal to the citizens of LC. The conclusion that the action would guarantee M’s success in her current quest to be LC’s new mayor remains questionable. The standard of a mayor consist of a myriad of factors. Only the commitment to environmental causes is far from enough, The author rarely provides the evidence to support the conclusion. Unless  the author could rule out the alternative explanation ,the conclusion is unconvincing.
   In sum, the argument, while seems logical at first, has several logical flaws as discuss above. The argument could be improve by providing the evidence that the success of prohibit-action in P can also be attained in LC . The argument could be further improve(improved) by provide the causal relationship between prohibit-action and recycling program or more information about M.

这篇文章结构上完整，也连贯，标准的五段论形式。
内容也很丰富，把应该有的错误基本上都找了。
语言上挺好，
很值得学习啊。
不过，第一段可能写得有点太长了，这里可以节省一点时间，
因为重点是在论证部分。
希望你能尽快努力在规定的时间中写出这样的文章来。:)

BKRL1234UID: 2127835

太感谢了，我一定多写多练：）