ARGUMENT177 [Shining Sep] 作文组 第四次作业

fl03chjjUID: 2160826

ARGUMENT177 [Shining Sep] 作文组 第四次作业
字数严重超了~而且费话多~要改要改~


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."

577   03:43-4:27

The author proposed in this letter that the membership in Oak City's Civic Club (CC) should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. The supporting evidence is that the author believes that nonresidents of Oak City could not contribute anything to the city. Besides, since they do not pay the taxes, they have no idea how the money could be best used. To further support his proposal, the author points out that this policy will not disappoint the nonresidents since the neighboring Elm City's Civic Club open police does not attract many nonresidents.
       
The propose made a mistake by assuming that only those who work but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is difficult to tell whether the residents are better informed about the city's business and politics. Perhaps those who work in Oak City are highly educated person who pay great attention to the city's business environment and policies because these information have a lot to do with the decision making process. They may care as much as the residents of Oak City because these critical decisions may affect their own jobs and payments. They have every reason to care about changes made to the city, even more urgent than the residents themselves. It is even likely that these residents understand the city better because they always make comparisons between the city they live in, and therefore have more insightful opinions about the city, which may help to make Oak City better.

It also suggests that it is important to keep the membership to the 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 the first glance this may seem true, since nonresidents pay no taxes to the city they work. But this assertion is superficial, and masks the fact that although they do not pay taxes directly to the city, they pay them indirectly. It is very possible that the companies or institutes they work pay taxes to the city. By this means, they are contributing their own effort to the city. Besides, as they work in Oak City, they inevitably spend money: buying newspaper, consuming meals and so on. It is just another kind of form that they help contribute to the local economy.

The author points out that this policy will not disappoint the nonresidents since the neighboring Elm City's Civic Club open policy does not attract many nonresidents. This comparison cannot give a solid prove to the possibility that the residents in Oak City will not be disappointed. The condition may be totally differet from the Oak City to Elm City. Perhaps the total number of nonresidents in Elm City is very small, which results in the small number of members of Elm City's Civic Club. Or perhaps the Civic Club is not welcomed by the nonresidents there while other clubs attracts the nonresidents.

The suggestion to restrict the membership to residents is unpersuasive in terms of its mere assumptions that nonresidents do not understand Oak City. And they do not pay taxes to the city. To strength his support, the author need to give solid evidence to improve that the nonresidents are not concerned with Oak City's affairs. The information about the nonresidents’ conditions of the Elm City should also be provided before the author make judgment about the satisfactory rate of both cities.