ARGUMENT177 [SHINING SEP]

zeelichUID: 2194744

题目：ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
字数：558          用时：0:29:44          日期：2006-8-18

In the argument the arguer recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should continue restriction to residents of Oak City. To support this recommendation the arguer provides several pieces of evidence. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it could lend little credible support to the arguer's recommendation and therefore renders the argument unconvincing in several aspects as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that nonresidents employed in Oak City would not understand the business and politics of the city. While it is true that these people only works in the city but rather not live in it, however, they may have deeper interpretion of the city's affairs from their working experiences or from relationships with their patteners. Moreover, it would be too hasty to claim that only tax payer of the city would understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. Experience informs me that those nonresidents would also pay their taxes to the city, such as income taxes. Hence, the arguer's assertion is dubious at best based on such vague and oversimplistic assumptions.

Secondly, the arguer claims that the fact that in the last ten years only twenty-five nonresidents joined Elm City's Civic Club, which had an open menbership policy would stand for the fact that membership restriction would not diappoint many of the nonresidents. However this is not necessarily the case. Lack of the total number of the members in Elm City's Civic Club, it would be possible that twenty-five members would represent a large number of the membership. Further, there exists no clear correlation between disappointment and the fact that less nonresidents joined the club for the reason that nonresidents in Elm City may have other civic club to join. Besides, the arguer can not convince me that in the future there would no more nonresidents who are willing to join the Elm City's Civic Club. Moreover, the arguer overlooks the possibility that even if nonresidents in Elm City would not incline to join the local civic club, those in Oak City may have the opposite preference. Therefore, without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that Oak City's Civic Club should apply the restriction.

Finally, and similarly, the arguer ignores the possibility that there may exist other civic club in Oak City which may be more attractive to the nonresidents. Perhaps these nonlocal workers may speak out their perspective of the city's business in other clubs that it would also have influence on the city's affairs. Furthermore, the fact, as cited above, that Oak City's Civic Club's primary objective is to discull local issues could reveal that there are more objectives provided to discuss among people in Oak City. It would be arbitrary to impede them joining the club that they may discuss other objectives rather than Oak City's business and politics. In short, the arguer's recommendation is unsound based on vague and unwarranted evidence.

To sum up, the argument is fraught with logical flaws and not well substantiated. To better strengthen it the arguer should provide evidence that nonresidents of Oak City would not be diappointed with the continuation of the restriction. More details about the open membership policy applied in Elm City's Civic Club would be needed to illustrate the effectiveness of the restriction in Oak City.

windawayUID: 2210640

总体感觉有点罗嗦,
首段最后一句太长,完全可以删去后半句.
另外中间段,摸版的迹象较明显,没有必要没段都有最后句总结句,这样容易遮蔽掉实质性的内容.
至于,语言,例子方面我还要向你学习.

帮忙也给我提供点建议吧.
我觉的我的开头段太长了,但不知道怎么该好.

In this argument, the arguer recommends the membership in Oak City's Civic continue to be restricted to residents in this city. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer claims that only the residents of the city can truly understand the business and politics of the city and know how to use the money to improve the city since only they pay city taxes. Additionally, he cites the evidence of Elm City's club, in an attempt to prove that the nonresidents will not feel disappointed. Although, the reasoning seems make sense at first glance, a careful scrutiny will reveal several critical fallacies made in the argument.

A threshold problem the arguer makes is that he unfairly assumes that nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city while giving no evidence to support his assumption. Obviously, he overlooks those urbanists who have much experience and undoubtedly can present suggestive ideas about local issues of the city. Also, he fails to take into account those whose works are closely related to the issue discussed, although they live outside in the city. They are the people who have the most rights to talk about the issue. Lack a comprehensive analysis, the conclusion that nonresidents cannot help the local issue cannot convince me.

Similarly, the second problem with the argument is that only residents know how to best utilize the money to improve the city since they pay taxes. Common sense tell us there is little correlation existed between those taxes payers and those who know how to use them and it’s the economists that are probably most intimately involved in the city economy. In all likelihood, the Oak city lacks an experienced urban economist. In this case, it is necessary for the Oak City's Civic club to open to these people so that our city budget can be better planned.

The arguer goes on to indicate that nonresidents show little interest to the Elm City's Civic Club, simply based on the statistic that 25 nonresidents joined in the club. Absent the total number of the nonresidents in the city, the claim seems somewhat precipitous. In all likelihood, there are only 25 nonresidents working in Elm city and all of them take part in the club. If so, the evidence contrarily shows the great interest of the nonresidents.

Even if I were to admit that Elm City's Civic Club did not have an appeal for the Elm City's nonresidents, the arguer still makes a fallacy to apply the fact drawn from Elm City to Oak City. Similar may the two cities be in the geographical positions, several factors can also render them incomparable, such as the number of nonresidents working involved with urban planning, or political issues. Without ruling out these possibilities, the evidence of the Elm City’s Club cannot lend support to his recommendation.

To sum up, without adequate evidence, the arguer's recommendation lacks credibility.  To better convince me, he must at least demonstrate that nonresidents cannot understand the business and politics of Oak City. In addition, he should inform us of the conditions of the two cities in order to make the analogy.

MagicGlaiveUID: 2112081

题目：ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
字数：558 赞!!30分钟写这么多！！          用时：0:29:44          日期：2006-8-18
         

In the argument the arguer recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should continue restriction to residents of Oak City. To support this recommendation the arguer provides several pieces of evidence. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it could lend little credible support to the arguer's recommendation and therefore renders the argument unconvincing in several aspects as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that nonresidents employed in Oak City would not understand the business and politics of the city. While it is true that these people only works in the city but rather not live in it, however, they may have deeper interpretion拼写错误？ of the city's affairs from their working experiences or from relationships with their patteners. Moreover, it would be too hasty to claim that only tax payer of the city would understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. Experience informs me that those nonresidents would also pay their taxes to the city, such as income taxes. Hence, the arguer's assertion is dubious at best based on such vague and oversimplistic assumptions.

Secondly, the arguer claims that the fact that in the last ten years only twenty-five nonresidents joined Elm City's Civic Club, which had an open menbership policy would stand for the fact that membership restriction would not diappoint many of the nonresidents. However this is not necessarily the case. Lacking of the total number of the members in Elm City's Civic Club, it would be possible that twenty-five members would represent a large number of the membership. Further, there exists no clear correlation between disappointment and the fact that less nonresidents joined the club for the reason that nonresidents in Elm City may have other civic club to join. Besides, the arguer can not convince me that in the future there would no more nonresidents who are willing to join the Elm City's Civic Club. Moreover, the arguer overlooks the possibility that even if nonresidents in Elm City would not incline to join the local civic club, those in Oak City may have the opposite preference. Therefore, without considering and ruling out these and other possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that Oak City's Civic Club should apply the restriction.

Finally, and similarly, the arguer ignores the possibility that there may exist other civic club in Oak City which may be more attractive to the nonresidents. Perhaps these nonlocal workers may speak out their perspective of the city's business in other clubs that it would also have influence on the city's affairs. Furthermore, the fact, as cited above, that Oak City's Civic Club's primary objective is to discull local issues could reveal that there are more objectives provided to discuss among people in Oak City. It would be arbitrary to impede them joining the club that they may discuss other objectives rather than Oak City's business and politics. In short, the arguer's recommendation is unsound based on vague and unwarranted evidence.赞模版！很完整

To sum up, the argument is fraught with logical flaws and not well substantiated. To better strengthen it the arguer should provide evidence that nonresidents of Oak City would not be diappointed with the continuation of the restriction. More details about the open membership policy applied in Elm City's Civic Club would be needed to illustrate the effectiveness of the restriction in Oak City.

全文很完整，分析透彻，字数出众！
如果能排除一些小bug的话，应该5.5以上不成问题！加油！

zeelichUID: 2194744

原帖由 windaway 于 2006-8-18 18:39 发表
总体感觉有点罗嗦,
首段最后一句太长,完全可以删去后半句.
另外中间段,摸版的迹象较明显,没有必要没段都有最后句总结句,这样容易遮蔽掉实质性的内容.
至于,语言,例子方面我还要向你学习.

帮忙也给我提供点建 ...

呵呵，开头没必要把他的文章再重复一遍,点出他ARGU里的主旨句,然后一带而过就可以了

zeelichUID: 2194744

原帖由 MagicGlaive 于 2006-8-18 23:35 发表
题目：ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to d ...

呵呵，谢谢谢谢啊

jallineUID: 2192970

开头的确太长了, 复述不必要