Tough Break (再战200610G) argument提交贴

zhuluUID: 2134300

argu47 assignment of 7.18

Strategies:
1.        无因果：没有资料证明boom与eruption相关；boom发生的时间，是否在boom之后气温下降，如果boom发生在气温下降前或同时，两者就没有关系
2.        证据缺失：没有现存的记录不等于没有记录，也许记录被破坏，或发生在当时未进入文字记录的地区如Arctic
3.        他因：人为原因，或污染
WORDS: 354          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-19

The author in this argument maintains that the earth cooling in the mid-sixth century was probably owing to a volcanic eruption. He（这样有性别歧视，还是用the arguer比较，后面我就不说了，你自己改吧） considers that there are two possible causes which led to cooling, either an eruption or a meteorite colliding很好，开头就点出来了，作者有“非此即彼，两难的错误”. According to his reasons of no existing records about a flash related to colliding and a loud boom, he comes to his conclusion. Careful review into his words discloses unreliability of his argument.

First of all, the author links the loud boom with a volcanic eruption unfairly. The argument provides no convincing evidence indicating that the boom means an eruption. Only if the boom made sound after the eruption would it be possible for the author's conclusion to be well grounded. However, it is fully probable that eruption happened after or at the same time of the boom. If so, cooling would not take place by virtue of the eruption. In this way（赞！）, the author's conclusion is completely overwhelmed.

In the second place, the author claims that there are no extant records of a flash which was produced by a large meteorite collision. He equals "no extant records" to "no records" simply and rashly（赞！）. But actually, although there are no left records, maybe ever-being records have been destroyed before people discovered them, or perhaps the collision arose up in such places without no literal records as Arctic at that time. Without ruling out these or other possibilities, there was still meteorite collision having happened. Accordingly, the conclusion of this argument is not guaranteed.
                  
In addition, the author makes an unfair either-or mistake by attributing cooling to the only mentioned causes. There could be other activities which might resulted in cold temperature. For example, as human beings had more and more effects on the Nature than..., they could destroy some elements of stable temperature and lead to cooling. Or environmental pollution caused by them could also  bring cold weather.似乎缺点总结性的话！

All in all, the author does not deduce his conclusion in a reasonable and persuasive way. To make his insist acceptable, he should relate the boom with eruption accurately and eliminate any other possible causes leading to cooling.
嗯，总体都不错，我要向你好好学习！就是最后一段还有点仓促！可以再模板的基础上，再说得更加具体一点。

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

这篇好难写啊，头绪又多又乱,不但限时彻底失败, 而且字数超了......(觉得现在说汉语都想加连接词~)
220The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.

"A recent study showed that in describing a typical day's conversation, people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media."

In this article, the author makes a suggestion that people who want to find jobs in book publishing should turn their target to television area and receive relative training. To support his argument, the author cites a recent study about the difference between the number of watching television and reading fiction that been mentioned by people when they are making conversation. Besides, he concludes even further that this fact proves the lower capacity of earning profit of bookselling industry. As for me, this article suffers from several analytical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the mere fact that people refer watching television far more than reading is scant and slim evidence that fictions even the whole book market interests less people than its rival. First, no evidence concerning relating information about this survey is available. It is possible that this investigation is constrained in a relatively small group of people from either demographic or geographic classification. If people who take this survey mainly from a club of TV show or a town
in which a large TV corporation operates, the result is quite reasonable if we notice these factors. Furthermore, even the reliability of this outcome is guaranteed, there are other possibilities which cannot be used to illustrate the author's assumption between the lines- the less times being mentioned, the less regard it receives. Experience tells us that television, as a main aspect of mass media, always provides people the most common topic for their discussion. On the other side, diversified categories of books are subject to personal choice and barely referred in conversation. What is more, fictions are not equal with books, which includes many professional ones of lasting value.

Secondly, even we accept that publishing area does attract less people than television, the author still has to furnish his another assumption with more examples- the less regard it receives, the less profit it makes. Perhaps compared with mature TV field and its large consumers, the domain of book industry is far more profitable given that such small portion of people is the very symbol of underdevelopment. Or maybe such a slight part of market share is enough for the whole industry to prosper due to the higher buying power of its customers. In a word, without considering every aspect relating with this issue, such as regulation and subsidy of government, relative income and cost and the growing tendency of each area etc, it is too haste for the author to make the judgment.

Thirdly, the current condition of a domain does not naturally warrantees the circumstance of each individual working in it. If bookselling is in depression and ordinary workers in publishing companies only can earn slight money, does it is necessarily hat people writing books are also suffering from this predicament? The answer is clearly no. According to our observation, any kind of media is tending to pay more money to hire talent to help them get out from mire when they cannot do anything to revert something. In addition to, not all people are thinking of payment is the only factor deciding their choice. As far as I know, especially in the area of writing, interest and passion are two primary reasons that guide career path..

Finally, the author ignores two defects in his suggestion. One is that there is obvious difference between the creations for print media or TV method. Maybe only work training and experience are not sufficient or useful to achieve such goal aiming at changing career. Those who want to comply with the author's prediction might need more systematic education. The other one is the fact that nowadays more and more TV programs are edited from popular books and even those people hired by TV company as experts are those prominent in publishing industry at first. Lack of bringing such practical phenomenon into consideration, I remain unconvinced by this article.

In sum, this argument is filled with false assumption and analysis serving to weak its viewpoint. To better indicate that his recommendation is correct, the author must provide the relation between numbers of these two media mentioned by people and its ability to earn money is valid. The reliability of the study also needs to be testified to support its conclusion. Moreover, the article would be revised if other information concerning salary's influence on personal decision and true
condition in print and television area were possessed.

licheewu28UID: 2131182

ARGUMENT220 - The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.

"A recent study showed that in describing a typical day's conversation, people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media."
WORDS: 448          TIME: 0:40:00          DATE: 2006-7-26
Strategies:
1.The threshold problem is the reliability of the cited study and efficiency of comparison between TV and fiction references.
2.The second fallacy is the broadened scope from a part of the industry to the whole.
3.Last but not least, the author makes the false dilemma of the only two choices because there are other directions for writers to work for.
According to this article, people to be writers are suggested to write for television instead of for print media. To support his advice, the author cites a study showing that people mention watching TV more often than reading fiction. Careful review through the article reveals that the suggestion is untenable without credible evidence.
The threshold problem lies in the cited study which the author's conclusion is based on. Firstly, there is no detailed information about how the study was conducted, how many people were interviewed, what kind of questionnaire was designed, etc. If only 24 or 48 people were interviewed, the result of the study is actually invalid. Without the information, the study is unreliable to support what the author claims. Secondly, the quantitative comparison of 23 and 1 might be unpersuasive in that television and fiction are of different features so that their references are compared insignificantly. As for their features, the former is inclined to be watched by more than one singular person and thus easily appear in conversations while the latter is often read by an individual so as to be less mentioned publicly. Therefore, their reference comparison makes no difference to strengthen the suggestion.
The second fallacy is that the author makes the mistake of broadening scopes hastily. From the television to the television industry, from books to print media, we can get great gap in that the television industry is more than the television and print media is not specifically limited in books. In this way, the tendency of the only part cannot represent the whole development because the rest part will keep pushing the whole ahead despite of how the single part is going on. Moreover, the author equals rashly times of watching TV to the amount of TV play shows, and even to profits of the TV industry. Since there is only a little indication of TV and books, the tendency of the concerned whole industry will not definitely take place as the author predicts.
Last but not least, the author takes the false dilemma of the only two choices, namely, writing for television and for print media. In fact, there are other writing directions for writers to work for, such as the Internet , which is most popular presently, and TV plays writing, which includes not only the TV industry but also print media. Without considering these or other ways for writers to work for, the author cannot recommend the narrow advice.
To sum up, this is a superficial argument. Only when the author knows the writing market thoroughly can he present people with efficient advice. As for writers, they should develop their own advantages and choose the appropriate writing orientation suitable to their own writing features.

[ 本帖最后由 licheewu28 于 2006-7-27 08:40 编辑 ]

licheewu28UID: 2131182

大家好象忘了交提纲作业．
一定别忽视提纲呀，布置的提纲作业也都是高频的，和写作作业一样重要的．

zhuluUID: 2134300

[quote]原帖由 Anddie 于 2006-7-20 12:29 发表
超了一点时间，不过还是尽力在半个小时内完成的。

32. Until recently, people in Hiparia did most of their shopping by driving to shopping malls. They are beginning, however, to do more of their shopping by ordering merchandise from mail-order catalogs and the Internet. These purchases are delivered to them by mail or by a delivery service. For many purchases, Hiparians no longer need to drive to and from shopping malls; there will therefore be a resulting reduction in the consumption of vehicle fuel in Hiparia.

提纲：
1。可以远程购买不代表去的次数少了
2。送货会增加燃料的消耗量
3。当地居民多余的时间可以用来作其他事，增加燃料使用（这个观点我没有想到！）

The arguer cites about the possibility of a reduction in the consumptions of vehicle fuel in Hiparia, as a result of the prevalence of Internet and ordering merchandise. To justify this, he provides a fact that Hiparians now prefer order merchandise over the phone and internet, which might lead to a decrease of the times people go shopping by vehicle. I consider this argument suffering from several flaws as follows.

The major insufficiency of the arguer's conclusion is the assumption that the times people go shopping will decrease, due to the increase of people's ordering merchandise on the phone and Internet. However, this is not always the case because we cannot ignore the probability of people's going shopping just as much as they were. As a matter of fact, no one can by everything he wants only through such kinds of media that are not face-to-face, since there're some unpriced things like rings, cars, computers demanding the presence of customers to check them all over. On the other hand, a great many  people, especially for some young girls and teenagers, regards shopping as a kind of fun(entertainment好些), while the original purpose of it is considered to be the second place. In this case, the development of phone-ordering or Internet-ordering seems to have little influence on them.

Another flaw that the auger suffers is the neglect of the assumption of fuel by the delivery cars. It is common sense （It is common sens不好，常理认为。在我们看来的常理，可能别人认为不是常理，不如改为it seems that the cost...）to us that the cost of delivery of might become a major expense to the merchants, most of which derives from the cost of fuel. Most time merchants will take every method(take method to do sth? 好像没见过这种用法，take good advantage of , make use of, carry out, adopt, impose) to optimize the route of delivery in order to save the cost of delivery, from which we can conclude the cost of transportation might compensate(balance, surpass, To offset, counterbalance.) decrease of the fuel consumed by customers.

Finally, even if the possibilities of the two cases above are eliminated, the author offers no firm evidence to consolidate his conclusion when another condition may emerge that Hiparians are more willing to go outside by cars or buses, along with the time they saved on the way of going shopping. To spend the extra time Hiparians might hope to go to have fun, like going to films, going to amusement parks etc. This will no doubly intensify the transportation of the town and cause an augment on the fuel assumption(应该是consumption).

All in all, the arguer’s conclusion is not valid considering the three possibilities above, neither does he supply any evidence to prove the assumption that people will be less willing to go shopping with the apply of phone-ordering and Internet. To better assess the argument we would need to know more about the change of the status of traffic of the town, as well as the merchants' reaction to this condition.


不错，总体都还可以！^_^

licheewu28UID: 2131182

原帖由 Enna_garfield 于 2006-7-25 01:20 发表
因为耽误了两天所以今天发了两篇， 这片是完全按照《ARGUMENT就应该这样写！》来写的，想看看写好后什么样，都来拍拍~

17The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspap ...

In this article, the author claims that the decision made by the town council of Walnut Grove (WG) is unreasonable and cites three evidences to support his viewpoint. For me, solely based on such facts cannot convince me that remaining 这个词在这里是呵用意contract relationship with EZ is sagacious. Besides, this argument also suffers from several critical problems as follows.

To begin with, the author only provides scant and weak fact to illustrate the superiority of EC compared with ABC. First, it is quite possible that WG is so clean and tidy that not only householders but also the sanitarian department does not require disposal company to collect trash very frequently. Maybe only once a week in this matter is optional enough because of noise and possible inconvenience caused by collecting garbage for residents. Secondly, influx of new ordered trucks predicts little about improvement in practical work, given the doubtful doubtable usage of these trucks and the efficiency at which they would be utilized. Thirdly, the author fails to provide a qualified survey that is both accurate accurate both in expression of the true meaning of "satisfied" and in sufficient presenting relative information concerning every aspect of the investigation. For example, there might be higher level of satisfaction about the performance of ABC if they were hired. Or the 20% people left are extremely unhappy about EC's drawbacks. Lack of useful background of the reliability of the survey's outcome, it is difficult for us to accept that EC can offer better service than ABC.

Furthermore, even we acknowledge that all above fact is believable and EC can furnish 觉得这个词有装备的意思，supply合适点 excellent service for WG's community, another false assumption committed in the article should not be ignored-- the difference between the two companies' standard services is worthwhile of $500 margin or the $500 increase in charge of charged by EC is due to such enhancement. But 这里应该没有转折关系we cannot infer from the passage about whether these assumptions are correct. It is all likely that EC also performs according on that high guidance before the change of fee for a long time if we consider the contract of 10 years. EC has served in the same guidance in the past years as the company does after the increase of the price. What is more, granted that these  methods of bettering service could cause some extent of increase in cost and thus in price, a sudden rise in by 25% of original price could not be explained unless we have been submitted received data regarding respective rate about benefit and cost perceived by customers of these two corporations.

Finally, there might be other reasons why town council wants to switch from EC to ABC, not about owing to money and times they collect waste. If EC应该是EC’s service or way of dealing with waste is not such an environmentally friendly organization as ABC, the town council concerning most about WG's surrounding may reject the offer of EC no matter how competitive its price is. For instance, maybe EC disposes all trash by the way of burning without classification or burying in wild land, which is so harmful that has given rise to deterioration of town's neighborhood. In such condition, barely could the author's contention interest the town council and change their mind due to the different concerns of both sides.

In sum, to better valuate the suggestion in the article we need more strong support to make sure that EC does possess better capacity to serve GM than ABC or itself before. In addition, detailed details revealing relating related performance of cost of these two companies is desirable as well. We also should be aware of whether the true reason town council turning to ABC is connecting connected with its low price or good service.
论证上问题不大，有一点想提一下：false dilemma的问题，即文中只提到两个公司，并没有考虑别的公司。
支持论据的语言组织需要加强一下，有些句子觉得似乎看懂了，就是不知道用意不是很强。仅供参考，我们都在进步的：）

zhuluUID: 2134300

TOPIC: ARGUMENT170 - For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.
WORDS: 436          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-27

The argument seems well presented, but not well-reasoned. In the argument, the arguer assumes the conclusion that once consumer are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they would like to pay as much for Gulf coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters and great profit will also follow. To support the conclusion, the arguer cited that a process which was devised by scientists to kill bacterial in oysters. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that the bacterial was the true reason for the trend. However, there are many alternatives for the trend. It may be the fact that the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast are from wild strain, but the Gulf Coast oysters is cultivated by artificial method. And the wild one might be much more delicious than the artificial-cultivated one. Then people prefer to pay more to buy the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic. On the other hand, the further processing technology besides bacterial would also lead to the decline of popularity of Gulf Coast oysters. It may be the fact that the processing skills of the northeastern Atlantic Coast could be more experienced and sophisticated than Gulf Coast oysters. Therefore the flavor of the oysters differs dramatically.

In the second place, the arguer cited that because a new skill is devised to kill bacteria, people will pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. Even though the skill would work and kill the bacterial in Gulf Coast oysters, the status may not be changed. For one thing, the expression of Gulf Coast oysters might be still less popular than northeastern Atlantic Coast for the discovery of harmful bacterial although the bacterial is totally killed in Gulf Coast oysters, because people might not be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters. Secondly, although people are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, the people may still prefer to the oysters from Atlantic Coast oysters because they trust the quality and flavor of latter one. Thirdly, although the bacterial in the oysters from Gulf Coast is removed, it does not mean the fact that the price will be increased to the same level as Atlantic Coast, because the quality and basic of production cost will be another problem. It may be the fact that the cost of Atlantic Coast oysters is almost the twice as the oysters from Gulf Coast.

Thirdly, although the bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters, people may not pay attention to it and care the bacteria very much. Perhaps, people care more about the oysters' flavor instead of whether the oyster has bacteria or not, because the bacteria might be killed after the further processing. On the other hand, the arguer did not offer any exact figure of the percent of Gulf Coast oysters which had be found to have harmful bacteria. It may be the fact that just a slight proportion of Gulf Coast oysters have harmful bacterial, and the new devised process would not increase the profits of Gulf Coast oysters.

To sum up, the argument lack credibility because the arguer fail to lend strong evidence to support what the arguer claims in the argument. To support the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide the true reason of the decline of popularity of Gulf Coast Oysters. Moreover, the arguer also has to hold a survey to investigate whether the people will be willing to buy the oysters from Gulf Coast oysters if the new skill is applied to kill the harmful bacterial. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.

Enna_garfieldUID: 2180738

原帖由 licheewu28 于 2006-7-25 12:18 发表
ARGU17
WORDS: 447          TIME: 0:60:00          DATE: 2006-7-24

In this letter the editor claims against using ABC Waste (ABC) but insists on EZ Disposal (ED) to give trash collection service ...

(吱吱) ARGU17 of July 22 assignment

ARGU17
WORDS: 447          TIME: 0:60:00          DATE: 2006-7-24

In this letter the editor claims against using ABC Waste (ABC) but insists on EZ Disposal (ED) to give trash collection service for Walnut Grove's town (WG). 这么考验语法的句子我从来不敢用, 抄下来~His evidence is that EZ collected trash more often and has more trucks, and a survey cited shows respondents' satisfaction with EZ. But such superficial evidence will not take others into adopting his idea definitely. The reasons opposite to his claim are as following.
To begin with, the letter provides no assurance that EZ will offer service of better quality than ABC. Although EZ makes more frequent collections each week, how its workers do the collection is unknown. Probably they do not collect all trash as required, while ABC's worker can. Likewise, it is not guaranteed that EZ will use all of its trucks in the course of cleaning WG 's town though EZ owns more trucks than ABC. Perhaps the company plans to use the additional trucks in other projects, which are unrelated to cleaning the town. Moreover, the survey cited in the letter is not valid definitely in that there are no detailed information about how the survey was conducted, how many people were interviewed, what (in which) kind of districts they lived, what the percentage of the interviewees is of the local residents. If only a small part of people were interviewed and thus cannot represent the attitudes of all local residents, the survey works in vain to serve as evidence. What is more important, the letter gives no information about the attitudes of people toward $500 more of EZ price.( This point could easily be omitted.) Meanwhile, the editor shows no description about ABC. Since the town did not use the company, people have no idea of its service. It is fully possible that its workers can provide better services. Therefore, it is incredible (惊人的?) that EZ will work better than ABC and the town cannot employ it at higher price unjustifiably.
Another problem the editor ignores is the necessary prerequisite, that is, whether the local government can afford higher-price service of EZ. If the financial situation fails to make such investment of more $500,(别扭了一点,这样呢: such an investment of $500 more compared with former price) it is impossible for the government to use EZ.
Last but not least, the letter makes the either-or dilemma since only the two companies are provided to be considered. Maybe the editor fails to include other best trash companies he never knows, which can probably do civil cleaning in low prices. Before eliminating such a possibility, the editor cannot come to his conclusion hastily. 这一段和上一段的论点我都没想到, 回头补充进去All in all, the editor cannot convince others with the simple evidence. To strengthen his conclusion, he has to prove that EZ provides the best service and the local government is able to pay the service. Otherwise, his advice is delivered insignificantly. 扼要啊~
这篇是一贯的风格.果然看别人的作文对自己反省最大, 真有体会

munickyUID: 2122843

In this memo, the author draws a conclusion that people in the West Meria (W) should use one kind of nutritional supplement derived from the fish which is called lchthaid to prevent cold and to low the absenteeism. To bolster his recommendation, he cited a study result that people in East Meria (E) who always eat fish visit doctor few times for colds treatment. Nevertheless, close scrutiny reveals that the evidence cited can not lend support to the  recommendation.

In the first place, failing to see the great possible distinctions between two places, the author unfairly assumes that the approach in East Meria would carry out the same result in West Meria.  It is entirely possible that the weather in E is much warmer than that in W, it is also possible that people in E always take part in exercises in the contrast with people in W who spend too much time in work. All these possibilities may undermine the final result of the author's recommendation. Thus, he/she must provide more detailed condition in these two places.

In the second place, the author draws a causal relationship between eating fish and preventing colds, yet he/she fails to provide sufficient and convincing evudence to support it. As we know, there are millions of reasons for one person to have strong resistance of flu, just like taking exercise frequently. Thus, without eliminating any other possibilities, the author can not convince me that it is the consumption of fish that cause people in E to prevent cold.

Finally, the author draws a hasty recommendation. First of all, he/she can not verify that eating fish can help people in E resist colds as my previous argument said, even can not convince that they actually do not catch cold frequent. On the one hand, we are not assured that the study has a sufficient and representative respondents, if the reporter only study those people whose living conditions are good or who always take exercise, then it can not be evidence to support his recommendation; on the other hand, going to the doctors few times for the treatment of colds do not follow that people do not always catch cold necessarily. It is likely that when they got the less serious disease, just go to the medicine store instead of asking for treatment from the doctors, for that matter, the author can not make the conclusion that people in E have strong resistance to colds. Secondly, even the people in E actually are harder to catch cold, and it is also the result of having fish, cause there are myriads of constituents in fish, then just recommending one kind of them failing to invite necessary evidence is dubious at best. In a word, unless the author provides more evidence, he/she can not draw such a recommendation.

To sum up, this memo suffers some logical flaws and without enough evidence to verify it. So to better support his/her recommendation, the author should do more detailed study to make clear the actual health condition of people in E and true reason for the resistance of cold. To judge the recommendation, I also need the research result of the function such nutrition so-called lchthaid.

munickyUID: 2122843

原帖由 licheewu28 于 2006-7-26 10:49 发表
38.Public Health Council，absenteeism 论断
WORDS: 539          TIME: 1:10:00          DATE: 2006-7-25

In this letter the author maintains that Ichthaid (IC) is helpful to prevent colds and lowe ...

In this letter the author maintains that Ichthaid (IC) is helpful to prevent colds and lower absenteeism in schools and workplaces. To validate his idea, he cites a study showing that people in East Meria, who consume much fish, visit doctors less, and the other evidence is that many people are absent for the reason of colds. (中间最好加个转折关联词）Careful review into his evidence shows that his conclusion is ungrounded.
To begin with, the author fails to provide assurance of the prerequisite of his maintenance, that is, absenteeism is fully owing to colds. Though people give the reason of colds for their absences, it is possible that the reason is actually the excuse to escape from school and work.（这一点地论述开始没想到，提醒了我） Moreover, the author claims that colds are "most frequently" as the reason of people's absence, which is invalid to convince me to believe the fact with no accurate data of frequency. Unless he gives sufficient information about the frequency of absenteeism and its realistic reason, IC can be persuaded that colds are responsible for the case.
The second fallacy in the letter is that the author assumes unfairly that East Meris people catch colds less than West Meris counterpart. Less visits of doctors do not mean that people do not or less catch colds because probably people in the place do not go to visit doctors; or perhaps they buy cold medical instead of seeing doctors. In such a case, it is incredible that West Meris people catch colds less because of consuming fish.
The third problem lies in that the author takes it as granted that Ichthiad, a kind of element derived from fish oil, helps cure the colds. Even if it is colds that lead to absenteeism in the place, it remains unknown whether IC can be efficient to prevent it. Since we do not know what percentage of IC exists in fish oil, （precentage 和它是否有效没必然联系）and that of fish oil in fish, perhaps it is other elements involved in fish that take effect to treat colds. What's more, the author ignores any side effect(加个 may be，不然太绝对化） aroused by the element. If IC could bring stomachache or other pains to cold patients, it would worsen the situation of absenteeism.(solution to the use of I.
In addtion, even if the above conditions are valid as the author assumes, using IC will not definitely benefit to West Meria people. The author makes a false analogy between the two places without considering their differences like their individual geographical circumstances(地理环境似乎和感冒没太大关系）, their environments and climates. If the weather varies greatly and temperature fluctuate continuously within a day in West Meria while it is calm and comfortable in East Meria, people will still catch colds easily in the former place even when they take I. For that matter, the author cannot justifiably make his claim of using IC effective.
All in all, this is a questionable argument. To strengthen his suggestion, the author should prove that colds are responsible for absenteeism and IC can treat the illness. What’s more, he has to offer information that  if the two places are similar in the objective environment.

licheewu28UID: 2131182

原帖由 zhulu 于 2006-7-27 18:28 发表
TOPIC: ARGUMENT170 - For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend b ...

The argument seems well presented, but not well-reasoned. In the argument, the arguer assumes the conclusion that once consumer are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they would like to pay as much for Gulf coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters and great profit will also follow. To support the conclusion, the arguer cited这里到底用一般现在时还是过去时，我用的一般现在时，你和红魔是过去时，如果有确切的答案可否告诉我？that a process which was devised by scientists to kill bacteria（下同，好象都拼错了） in oysters. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that the bacterial was the true reason for the trend. which kind of trend? However, there are many alternatives 可供选择的办法， causes合适for the trend. It may be the fact that the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast are from wild strain, but the Gulf Coast oysters is cultivated by artificial method. And the wild one might be much more delicious than the artificial-cultivated one. Then people prefer to pay more to buy the oysters from the northeastern Atlantic. On the other hand, the further processing technology besides inside bacteria would also lead to the decline of popularity of Gulf Coast oysters. It may be the fact that the processing skills of the northeastern Atlantic Coast could be more experienced and sophisticated than those of Gulf Coast oysters. Therefore the flavor of the oysters differs dramatically. 最好有总结性的句子。这里是说明其他因素而不是因为bacteria导致价格没有竞争力。
In the second place, the arguer cited that because a new skill is devised to kill bacteria, people will pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters. Even though the skill would work and kill the bacterial in Gulf Coast oysters, the status may not be changed. For one thing, the expression 是何用意?of Gulf Coast oysters might be still less popular than northeastern Atlantic Coast for the discovery of harmful bacteria although the bacteria is totally killed in Gulf Coast oysters, because people might not be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters. Secondly, although people are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, the people may still prefer to the oysters from Atlantic Coast oysters because they trust the quality and flavor of latter one. Thirdly, although the bacteria in the oysters from Gulf Coast is removed, it does not mean the fact that the price will be increased to the same level as Atlantic Coast, because the quality and basic of production cost will be another problem. It may be the fact that the cost of Atlantic Coast oysters is almost the twice as the oysters from Gulf Coast. 即使杀菌成功，价格不一定上升，其他因素影响。
Thirdly, although the bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters, people may not pay attention to it and care the bacteria very much. Perhaps, people care more about the oysters' flavor instead of whether the oyster has bacteria or not, because the bacteria might be killed after the further processing. 这里和上面一段重复了吧On the other hand, the arguer did not offer any exact figure of the percentage of Gulf Coast oysters which had be found to have harmful bacteria. It may be the fact that just a slight proportion of Gulf Coast oysters have harmful bacteria, and the new devised process would not increase the profits of Gulf Coast oysters.这部分应该放在第一个论据，论证bacteria不是导致价格低的主要原因。
To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because the arguer fails to lend strong evidence to support what the arguer claims in the argument he claims. To support the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide the true reason of the decline of popularity of Gulf Coast Oysters. Moreover, the arguer also has to hold a survey 这点我没想到，可以学一下；不过你在前面没有讲到，最好是在论证中作为补充说明，效果会更好。 to investigate whether the people will be willing to buy the oysters from Gulf Coast oysters if the new skill is applied to kill the harmful bacteria. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.
表达上没什么错误，但是论据分类不清楚，上面提到的一些很多是因为论证重复了，写之前最好有个提纲，理清思路，可能会好些。

zhuluUID: 2134300

TOPIC: ARGUMENT71 - Copper occurs in nature mixed with other minerals and valuable metals in ore, and the proportion of copper in the ore can vary considerably. Until fairly recently, the only way to extract pure copper from ore was by using a process that requires large amounts of electric energy, especially if the proportion of copper in the ore is low. New copper-extracting technologies can use up to 40 percent less electricity than the older method to process the same amount of raw ore, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Therefore, we can expect the amount of electricity used by the copper-extraction industry to decline significantly.
WORDS: 433          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-28

The argument seems well-presented, but not well reasoned. In the argument, the arguer attempts to convince us the recommendation of a new kind of copper-extracting technologies so that the amount of electricity used by industry to decline significantly. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the weakness of traditional way of copper-extracting, and the advantages of new method over the old one. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer cited that the conventional method need large amount of electric energy. The large amount is not a exact figure to express the proportion of electric energy in the total expense of Copper exaction. It may be the fact that the electric energy needed for copper extraction only stand for 0.1 percent in the total cost of electricity of copper-extraction industry because there are also many other alternatives which also cost high amount of electricity in copper-extraction industry, such as electronic transportation, electronic chemicals preparing and so on.  Accordingly, even though the optimization of extracting technologies is so successful that the electricity used by the copper-extraction industry could not be declined significantly.

In the second place, the arguer assumes the advantage of new method in that new method use up to 40 percent less than older method to process the same amount of raw ore, especially when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. Firstly, although the new method saves much energy of electricity, the effect of copper-extraction may be less significant and convincing than the older method. However, the older method takes the full advantage of electricity to extract the copper in the best quality which is widely accepted and sold. Secondly, the new method might only work and save electricity when the proportion of copper in the ore is high. The method may cost much more electricity than the conventional method when the proportion of copper in the ore is relative lower in some certain places. Then the new method not only cannot save electricity, but also cost much more electricity to achieve copper-extraction.

In the third place, the arguer draws the conclusion hastily that the electricity of the copper-extraction is expected to declined significantly when the new method is applied. The arguer render few amount of information of the method, although the new method cost less electricity than the new method, it may cost much more electricity in other facets when the new method is really adopted. For example, the new method needs much more chemicals of solution to get better effect of exaction which needs much more electricity to achieve.  

To sum up, the argument lack credibility to support what the arguer claims here. To make the conclusion more convincing, the arguer should render more information about the exact proportion of copper exaction in the whole copper-exaction industry. Moreover, the arguer also needs to provide the comparison between older method and new technology in the facet of processing different kinds of raw minerals whose proportion of copper ranks from low to high. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.

munickyUID: 2122843

In this argument, the arguer draws a recommendation that people who are seeking for writing jobs should be trained to write for the television program instead of the book for the reason that a study shows that people always talk watching TV more than reading fiction. However, close scrutiny reveals that this recommendation lacks convincing evidence to support.

First and foremost, the recommendation rests on the assumption that the more people like one thing, the more they would talk about it in their conversation. But we are not assured about it. It is entirely possible that when people meet each other, they always complain about how terrible the current television programs are. It is also likely that they exchange their ideas about the bad influence those programs bring to their kids. In a words, there are millions of topics about television, without detailed study about people's typical day's conversation, the arguer's assumption is unwarranted.

Secondly, the evidence cited to support the recommendation also suffer from some logical flaws. On the one hand, we are not assured that the study has sufficient and representative respondents, if it just survey those housewives whose daily lives are taken by television, then this study is not supportive. On the other hand, referring fewer times about the fiction reading does not follow that people also fail to like fiction or talk about other kinds of books. As we know, the fiction book mainly attracts those teenagers whose daily talks refer to sports; fashion; movie or music stars, which always shown on TV, and which can bring them more common topics, rather than their private time, so those teenagers would talk about television more, but they would still like the fiction. Even though the fiction is fewer times referred, it is also possible that people would talk some other kinds of publishes more, just like the head-line news on the newspaper or something else. Thus, as the arguer fails to rule out all these possibilities, the evidence cited can not lend support to author's assumption and recommendation.

Finally, the arguer also draws a hasty conclusion and recommendation. In the first place, even though people like the TV programs better, the publishing and bookselling industries may not be decline in profitability necessarily. Since there is no evidence to show that people will stop buying publishes, after all, television and publishes provide different entertainment, no one would rather stick on one thing all the time, which may make he/she feel boring. And because the profitability of publishing or book industry comes from both the selling and advertising, all these possibilities would undermine the arguer's conclusion. In the second place, even if the selling of publishing decline, the newspaper would still need writers to provide articles. For there is no possibility that all publish industries bankrupt during one night, then the author's recommendation is dubious ai best.

To sum up, the arguer made a recommendation rests on a unsubstantiated assumption and some flawed evedence, for that matter, the arguer need to provide more detailed study on people's actual preference. To better judge the conclusion and recommendation, we also need more information of  the selling situation of the book and publishing industries.

munickyUID: 2122843

In this argument, the arguer draws a recommendation that people who are seeking for writing jobs should be trained to write for the television program instead of the book for the reason that a study shows that people always talk watching TV more than reading fiction. However, close scrutiny reveals that this recommendation lacks convincing evidence to support.

First and foremost, the recommendation rests on the assumption that the more people like one thing, the more they would talk about it in their conversation. But we are not assured about it. It is entirely possible that when people meet each other, they always complain about how terrible the current television programs are. It is also likely that they exchange their ideas about the bad influence those programs bring to their kids. In a words, there are millions of topics about television, without detailed study about people's typical day's conversation, the arguer's assumption is unwarranted.

Secondly, the evidence cited to support the recommendation also suffer from some logical flaws. On the one hand, we are not assured that the study has sufficient and representative respondents, if it just survey those housewives whose daily lives are taken by television, then this study is not supportive. On the other hand, referring fewer times about the fiction reading does not follow that people also fail to like fiction or talk about other kinds of books. As we know, the fiction book mainly attracts those teenagers whose daily talks refer to sports; fashion; movie or music stars, which always shown on TV, and which can bring them more common topics, rather than their private time, so those teenagers would talk about television more, but they would still like the fiction. Even though the fiction is fewer times referred, it is also possible that people would talk some other kinds of publishes more, just like the head-line news on the newspaper or something else. Thus, as the arguer fails to rule out all these possibilities, the evidence cited can not lend support to author's assumption and recommendation.

Finally, the arguer also draws a hasty conclusion and recommendation. In the first place, even though people like the TV programs better, the publishing and bookselling industries may not be decline in profitability necessarily. Since there is no evidence to show that people will stop buying publishes, after all, television and publishes provide different entertainment, no one would rather stick on one thing all the time, which may make he/she feel boring. And because the profitability of publishing or book industry comes from both the selling and advertising, all these possibilities would undermine the arguer's conclusion. In the second place, even if the selling of publishing decline, the newspaper would still need writers to provide articles. For there is no possibility that all publish industries bankrupt during one night, then the author's recommendation is dubious ai best.

To sum up, the arguer made a recommendation rests on a unsubstantiated assumption and some flawed evedence, for that matter, the arguer need to provide more detailed study on people's actual preference. To better judge the conclusion and recommendation, we also need more information of  the selling situation of the book and publishing industries.

zhuluUID: 2134300

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

WORDS: 471          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-29
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
strategy:
1.although EZ collect twice a week, it does not mean the fact that they do better job than ABC.
2.truck cannot represent for the performancy of clear trash.
3.the survey lack valibity: 1)EZ do good job in the  last year, it does not mean that EZ will keep on performe convincing in the future; 2) responders cannot stand for the majority.
4.???  我不知道怎么把2000涨价到2500，和逻辑错误联系起来！请大家帮帮忙！我觉得这肯定是一个重大的逻辑错误，但是我不知道怎么解释！我觉得价格应该是非常重要的因素！不知道怎么说啊！还请高手指点啊！
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
正文：

The argument seems so well-presented and clarified, but not reasonable at all. In this argument, the arguer attempts to convince us that the town council is mistaken and we should continue using EZ instead of ABC waste. To support  the conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC just collects once. What's more, the arguer mentions that EZ has a fleet of 20 trucks and ordered additional trucks. Moreover, the arguer also refers to a survey which provides a result that 80 percent of respondents was satisfied with EZ. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that the EZ's performance is better than ABC because EZ collects twice and ABC collects only once. There is only one criterion to comment whether the EZ's performance is better than ABC or not. It is the public sanitation situation after collecting trash. It may be the fact that EZ collects more frequently than ABC, but the workers of EZ are so careless that a great amount of trash is still left without being removed. Additionally, ABC's workers collect trash so thoroughly and carefully that they need not to collect once more in a week because public is quite satisfied for their job.

In the second place, the arguer cited that EZ has a fleet of 20 trucks and has ordered additional trucks. Although the trcuks of EZ have the same model as ABC's trucks, it does not mean the fact that EZ also had the same performance as ABC. It may be the fact that EZ's drivers are less sophisticated and skilled in driving and getting rid of trucks. And EZ's truck always work less efficiently.  Accordingly, the excuse of EZ's truck cannot be a strong evidence to support the conclusion.

Moreover, the arguer finally refers to a vital survey that renders a result that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed with EZ's performance. Firstly, admittedly EZ's performance is quite convincing in the last year, it does not mean that EZ will also do good job in the future. Considering the developing tendency of a company will be much more necessary and imperative than commenting its former achievement. Secondly, the responders represent so vague that they cannot stand for the majority of the public. It may be the fact that the responders prefer to EZ's performance without comparing EZ with ABC by chance. From the analysis of the two facet above, the survey also lack validity to prove the conclusion.

To sum up, due to the less convincing evidence and equivocal survey, the argument lack credibility to support what the arguer claims here. To make the conclusion more convincing, more information should be concerned with comparison between EZ and ABC in many facet such as evaluation of clearness after collecting trash, price, popularity, and so on.  Additionally, a survey should be held toward the people who are more general and representative. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.