argument151 jingjing【临阵磨枪】

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

TOPIC: ARGUMENT151 - The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper.

"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."
WORDS: 445          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-2-19
提纲：
1 作者错误的把桥的破坏和交通问题归于Durant
2 样本差异，且作者的不完整比较不能支持其论证。
3 作者在评价Durant是忽略了桥所带来的好处。

Before accepting the author's suggestion, I find that the argument is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given. The author unduly relies on the implicit assumptions and incomplete comparison, which render his conclusion completely groundless.

To begin with, the author unjustifiably assumes that both the damage to the River Bridge and the traffic problems are attributable to Mayor Durant who approved the construction of the bridge. However, this might not be the truth. It is highly possible that there were no better design for the construction of a bridge linking Atticus to Hartley 20 years ago and Durant had to agree and sanction this sole construction plan eventually. Besides, it is unfair to conclude that Durant should undertake responsibility for the damage and traffic problems of the bridge. The author apparently overlooks other probable explanations for these incidents. Perhaps it is the engineers who built the bridge have not paid their most efforts for the construction- the utilitarian of the materials of poor quality that contributes the current destruction on the bridge. For the matter of traffic problems, it is entirely possible that there is no restrictions for the regulation of the traffic flow on the bridge by the contemporary government. As a consequence, it is not previous mayor Durant's false for these problems but the current leaders of government. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the author to attribute all the commits to Mr. Durant.

In addition, the author's comparison between River Bridge and Derby Bridge is too incomplete to be persuasive. Simply can we find the alternative explanations to refute the author's inference that due to Durant's negligence and wastefulness the River Bridge is inferior to the Derby Bridge. Primarily, there is a strong possibility that the utilizations of the two bridges are thoroughly distinct. For example, if River Bridge was suffer from the pressure of 10000 cars or buses per day while the Derby Bridge's suffering only amount to 5000, then the possibility of the risks for the destructions of the latter one will be much less that the former. Moreover, the author has failed to inform us the maintenance of both bridges, thus we have plenty reasons to suspect that whether the River Bridge has obtain the necessary maintenance which the Derby Bridge has. Therefore, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion based on this incomplete comparison.

Finally, the author neglects the more important aspects about the River Bridge while evaluating Mayor Durant's duty for its damage and relevant traffic problems. Maybe during the past twenty years, the construction of River bridge has brought tremendous economical benefits through fostering the deliveries between Atticus and Hartley. Therefore, without balancing the pros and cons of the bridge, the author cannot simply ask Mayor Durant to pay for this unexpected consequence.

In sum, the argument presented above is problematic in several facets. To bolster it, the author should provide clear evidence that Mayor Durant was responsible to the damage of the River Bridge without any excuse.

@amy@UID: 209096

占~

@amy@UID: 209096

Before accepting the author's suggestion, I find that the argument is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given. The author unduly relies on the implicit assumptions and incomplete comparison, which render his conclusion completely groundless.

To begin with, the author unjustifiably assumes that both the damage to the River Bridge and the traffic problems are attributable to Mayor Durant who approved the construction of the bridge. However, this might not be the truth. It is highly possible that there were no better design [designs] for the construction of a bridge linking Atticus to Hartley 20 years ago and Durant had to agree [with] and sanction this sole construction plan eventually. Besides, it is unfair to conclude that Durant should undertake responsibility for the damage and traffic problems of the bridge. [这句不是和本段主题句一样的吗，可以去掉吧，用下一句] The author apparently overlooks other probable explanations for these incidents. Perhaps it is the engineers who built the bridge have not paid their most efforts for the construction- the utilitarian [utilization] of the materials of poor quality that contributes the current destruction on the bridge. For the matter of traffic problems, it is entirely possible that there is no restrictions [restriction] for the regulation of the traffic flow on the bridge by the contemporary government. [关于traffic problems，我觉得还可以说：有可能20年前建成的时候并没有这个问题，而且流量很小，现在出现这个问题可能是因为经济已经飞速发展了，但却没有增建其他的桥来配合需要] As a consequence, it is not previous mayor Durant's false for these problems but the current leaders of government. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the author to attribute all the commits to Mr. Durant.

In addition, the author's comparison between River Bridge and Derby Bridge is too incomplete to be persuasive. Simply can we [这里不可以用倒装吧？应该是we can] find the alternative explanations to refute the author's inference that due to Durant's negligence and wastefulness the River Bridge is inferior to the Derby Bridge. Primarily, there is a strong possibility that the utilizations of the two bridges are thoroughly distinct. For example, if River Bridge was suffer from the pressure of 10000 cars or buses per day while the Derby Bridge's suffering only amount to 5000, then the possibility of the risks for the destructions of the latter one will be much less that the former. Moreover, the author has failed to inform us the maintenance of both bridges, thus we have plenty reasons to suspect that whether the River Bridge has obtain the necessary maintenance which the Derby Bridge has. Therefore, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion based on this incomplete comparison.[这段论述的很好]

Finally, the author neglects the more important aspects about the River Bridge while evaluating Mayor Durant's duty for its damage and relevant traffic problems. Maybe during the past twenty years, the construction of River bridge [Bridge] has brought tremendous economical benefits through fostering the deliveries between Atticus and Hartley. Therefore, without balancing the pros and cons of the bridge, the author cannot simply ask Mayor Durant to pay for this unexpected consequence.[这段好像有点不着边，我觉得还得好好改改]

In sum, the argument presented above is problematic in several facets. To bolster it, the author should provide clear evidence that Mayor Durant was responsible to the damage of the River Bridge without any excuse.

@amy@UID: 209096

（1） 把现在的桥的损坏和交通问题归于20年前Durant的决定不合理。一方面，有可能当时的设计已经足以满足当时的需求，而近几年经济快速发展，但现在的政府却没有建造新的桥来满足现在的需求；另一方面，桥的破坏不一定是设计造成，应该是管理和使用的问题，有可能Durant任市长的时候制定了管理桥的规定，但后面的市长没有好好执行这些规定，也没有定期对桥进行修缮，导致损坏很严重。
（2） 错误的假设建一架更宽设计更好的桥花费差不多。即使当时建一架更宽设计更好的桥就不会有现在的问题，在当时并不一定办到，因为受到经济萧条的限制，可能没钱。
（3）对River Bridge和Derby Bridge的比较缺少说服力。这两座桥可能在不同的地方，建造年代可能不同，流量可能不同，使用目的可能不同，管理可能不同，而且后者可能定期修缮。
（4）此外，即使这些问题真的归于Durant，这与他的wastefulness有什么关系？并没有任何证据说明他wasteful。


这是我的提纲，呵呵，期待和你讨论