Argument177 rt860113--Hamming小组第五次作业

rt860113UID: 2256886

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

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-aclub whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to berestricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but wholive elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city.It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residentspay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could bestbe used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way isunlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, sinceneighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, andonly twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
WORDS: 578          TIME: 0:53:16         DATE: 2006-12-19
提纲:
1.非居民未必不了解OAK的情况。
2.错误类比，不同城市间的情况比较。
3.忽略了其他解决方法。
In this argument, the proposal that the Civic Club should be restricted to Oak's residents is unpersuasive. Based on wrong understanding of residents and nonresidents of the city and unsound comparison between two cities, the argument would trigger the nonresidents' dissatisfaction. I will analyze it as follows.

To begin with, the assertion that people who just work in Oak do not truly know the business, politics and development ofthe city is groundless. It is arbitrary to say that people work there could not understand the city as well as the residents. Assuming that there is a man who work in Oak for thirty years and a man who just moved in there, it is no doubt that the former could know more about the city. So he is more qualified to discuss local issues in the club.

In addition, although some pf people who work in Oak but not live there do not pay city taxes, they could still well know how the money should be used to develop the city. Another, their corporations have to pay taxes to the city, to some extent, the improvement of Oak relates to the development of their corporations, so relates with themselves as well. Their life based on the city, it is nature that they would know how the tax money is best used. Furthermore, those people who live in other cities,so they will comprehensively know the advantages and the disadvantages of Oak comparing with other places, so they are more likely to give useful suggestion about the city.

Moreover, neglecting to consider the possible difference between Elm and Oak, the arguer's conclusion that there strict policy would not disappoint the nonresidents is arbitrary. It is possible that Elm is a small and remote city, and most of the workers there are also residents, so 25 is a big number for the nonresidents. And Oak is larger and open, a number of people work there but do not live there. So even if there are one percent of them who would be disappointed, the total number is big. Granted that Elm is a big city with lots of nonresidents, probably most of them do not care about the city. But the situation in Oak is perhaps different.Nonresidents are mostly want to contribute to the city, and they want to take part in the club. If this were the case, a number of people would be annoyed by the restricting membership.

Finally, there are other better solutions that the arguer fails to pay attention to. Besides absolutely restricting and open membership policy, other ways could also be considered. The Club couldrestrict the period of people live or work there, then it could guarantee thatthe members all care and understand Oak's condition well. This solution could ensure the qualified membership and the size of the club. Even if the arguer still wants to restrict, it would be wiser to take a survey to know the attitude of the residents, the nonresidents, and the members of club. The results could indicate which is the best solution. Before being provided with more evidence to support such argument, we could not be simply convinced by the arguer's statement.

In conclusion, the argument is unsound. Simply keeping the people who only work in Oak out of the Civic Club could not maximize the power and wisdom of all people who care about Oak. The arguer should collect more evidence to support the conclusion.

liquidshileUID: 2254332

In this argument, the proposal that the Civic Club should be restricted to Oak's residents is unpersuasive. Based on wrong understanding of residents and nonresidents of the city and unsound comparison between two cities, the argument would trigger the nonresidents' dissatisfaction. I will analyze it as follows.

To begin with, the assertion that people who just work in Oak do not truly know the business, politics and development of the city is groundless. It is arbitrary to say that people work there could not understand the city as well as the residents. Assuming that there is a man who work in Oak for thirty years and a man who just moved in there, it is no doubt that the former could know more about the city. So he is more qualified to discuss local issues in the club.

In addition, although some pf people who work in Oak but not live there do not pay city taxes, they could still well know how the money should be used to develop the city. Another, their corporations have to pay taxes to the city, to some extent, the improvement of Oak relates to the development of their corporations, so relates with themselves as well. Their life based on the city, it is nature that they would know how the tax money is best used. Furthermore, those people [没有谓语和宾语了] 可以改为 non-residents , living in other cities, might be familiar with both advantages and disadvantages of Oak City compare with other ones, therefore they….   who live in other cities, so they will comprehensively know the advantages and the disadvantages of Oak comparing with other places, so they are more likely to give useful suggestion about the city. [旁观者清的例子很好我要学习]

Moreover, neglecting to consider the possible difference between Elm and Oak, the arguer's conclusion that there[these] strict policy would not disappoint the nonresidents is arbitrary. It is possible that Elm is a small and remote city, and most of the workers there are also residents, so 25 is a big number for the nonresidents. And Oak is larger and open, a number of people work there but do not live there. So even if there are one percent of them who would be disappointed, the total number is big. Granted that Elm is a big city with lots of nonresidents, probably most of them do not care about the city. But the situation in Oak is perhaps different. Nonresidents are mostly want to contribute to the city, and they want to take part in the club. If this were the case, a number of people would be annoyed by the restricting membership.

Finally, there are other better solutions that the arguer fails to pay attention to. Besides absolutely restricting and open membership policy, other ways could also be considered. The Club could restrict the period of people live or work there, then it could guarantee that the members all care and understand Oak's condition well. This solution could ensure the qualified membership and the size of the club. Even if the arguer still wants to restrict, it would be wiser to take a survey to know the attitude of the residents, the nonresidents, and the members of club. The results could indicate to be the best solution. Before being provided with more evidence to support such argument, we could not be simply convinced by the arguer's statement. [这一篇用这个错误会不会有点点牵强了其实可以不写得字数段落错误都够了]

In conclusion, the argument is unsound. Simply keeping the people who only work in Oak out of the Civic Club could not maximize the power and wisdom of all people who care about Oak. The arguer should collect more evidence to support the conclusion.

几乎没有模版，我想你的issue应该写的不错，羡慕这种风格，可惜我没这本事

[ 本帖最后由 liquidshile 于 2006-12-23 23:24 编辑 ]