[a习作temp] Argument151 互拍啊~~~ [复制链接]

@amy@
UID: 209096

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 1
寄托币: 3052
注册时间: 2005-5-6
精华: 2
帖子: 7

发表于 2006-2-22 18:06:33 |显示全部楼层

题目
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."

翻译：
前任市长Durant应该向Atticus市道歉。连接着Atticus和Hartley两座城市的River Bridge的损害和长期困扰着我们的桥上的交通问题实际上都是20年前因Durant而导致的。无论如何，是他批准了桥梁的建造。如果他能够批准一个差不多花同样的钱的设计更好的方案的话，桥梁的损坏和交通问题都不会出现。但现在，River Bridge在过去20年间的损坏程度比上游另外一座更长的Derby Bridge更加严重。尽管近几年的冬天气候确实比较恶劣，但这也不是为Durant的过失和浪费开脱的借口。

**********************************************************
提纲
（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。

**********************************************************
字数：486 words
时间：40分钟
**********************************************************
正文
In this argument, the arguer's opinion that former Mayor Durant should take responsibility for the damage of the River Bridge and the traffic problems on the bridge suffers several flaws as discussed in the following. He fails to find strong evidence and unreasonably compares the River Bridge and the Derby Bridge.

First of all, the arguer is too hasty to attribute the damage and the traffic problems to Durant 20 years after the construction of the bridge without strong evidence. It is possible that before the bridge was built up, the traffic between Atticus and Hartley was very few, and after the bridge was finished, it can satisfy the contemporary needs and the traffic problems were appeared in recent years because the economy of Atticus City were blooming. Moreover, the damage to the bridge may be not the reason of the design, but the lack of periodical repair. It is likely that during the tenure of Durant, he has established some laws to manage the use and repair of the bridge, whereas, later mayors failed to make sure the laws were executed, which resulted the serious damage to the bridge.

Secondly, the arguer fails to make the assumption that to approve a wider and better-designed bridge spends approximately the same amount of public money as the River Bridge. Consider from common sense, to add the width of bridge or to improve the design will certainly increase the cost. It is very likely that to do like this will cost too much money, but at that time, the economy was stagnant and the government could not afford it.

Thirdly, the compare between the River Bridge and the Derby Bridge is unreasonable since the two bridges probably have totally different situations. For example, maybe the former is built for car, while the latter is for people; the former is of poor management, while the latter is of better management and repaired regularly. It is also possible that the Derby Bridge was built only a few years ago when the economy was much better than 20 years before, so the government has enough money to make a better plan, in addition, at that time, the technique and materials were also likely much better than 20 years before.

Last but not the least, granted that Durant should respond for the damage and the traffic problems, it is persuasive to blame his negligence, however, there is no evidence to prove that Durant should be charged for his wastefulness. In fact, one possibility is that he just wanted to save money when he approved the construction of the bridge.

To sum up, the arguer is too cursory to make his conclusion since he lacks of enough strong evidence. To make his conclusion more convincing, he has to take the facets discussed above into account, that is, to make sure Durant does make some faults when he approved the construction of the bridge.

用心就不会错过...