Argument177 hugo010311--Hamming组

hugo010311UID: 2237388

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 554          TIME: 0:56:23          DATE: 2006-12-19
1.不住o市的人不一定就不了解那儿的经济政治
2.交税不一定就知道税的用处，就算知道，不交税的人也可能知道
3.不一定此措施就不会让不住o市的人失望。
The author claims that memberships in Oak City's civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. To support this conclusion, the author points out that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. Because only residents pay city taxes, the author assumes that only residents understand how the money be used. The author also point out that the restricting action could not disappoint nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring city's club has always had an open membership policy. However, this argument contains several logical problems which render it unconvincing.

First of all, this argument based on an unwarranted assumption that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and policy of the city. Perhaps most people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere more concern about the business and policy of the Oak city that the residents of the city, and thus they have more thought and ideas to discuss local issues. Without examine and ruling out such possibility, the author cannot simply draw his conclusion that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and policy of the city.  

In addition, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that only residents pay city tax and the assertion that only residents understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. It is true that every resident pay city tax to the government on time, but it can not guarantee that they understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. It is entirely possible that the one do not know the utility of the money when he is paying the tax to government. Even assuming that residents understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. It is not equals that anyone else does not understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. As we know outsiders usually have a clearer eye on an inner issue. Hence, the author needs to provide more striking evidence that only residents understand how the money be used.

Finally, the neighboring city's open membership policy cannot substantiate that restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak city. Even though in Elm city twenty-five nonresidents have joined its club in the past years, the data cannot show that more nonresidents in Oak city can join it. It is equally possible that twenty-five people cover most of their memberships. As a result, other people can hardly join the club any longer. Before show that the restricting membership is indeed unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak city, the author convince us little.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide more striking evidence that nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and policy of the city, and he also needs to convince us that only residents understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. To better it, more evidences need to be provided to prove that restricting membership in this way is in fact unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak city.   

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

The author claims that memberships in Oak City's civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. To support this conclusion, the author points out that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. Because only residents pay city taxes, the author assumes that only residents understand how the money be used. The author also point out that the restricting action could not disappoint nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring city's club has always had an open membership policy.[这样子就把原文又写一遍？] However, this argument contains several logical problems which render it unconvincing.

First of all, this argument based on an unwarranted assumption that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and policy of the city. Perhaps most people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere more concern about the business and policy of the Oak city that the residents of the city, and thus they have more thought and ideas to discuss local issues. Without examine and ruling out such possibility, the author cannot simply draw his conclusion that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and policy of the city.
自己的内容太少了~

In addition, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that only residents pay city tax and the assertion that only residents understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. It is true that every resident [should] pays city tax to the government on time, but it can not guarantee that they understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. It is entirely possible that the one do not know the utility of the money when he is paying the tax to government. Even assuming that residents understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. It is not equals that anyone else does not understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. As we know outsiders usually have a clearer eye on an inner issue. Hence, the author needs to provide more striking evidence that only residents understand how the money be used.
其实把例子具体化效果好些，空讲道理的话有点空，考虑下

Finally, the neighboring city's open membership policy cannot substantiate that restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak city. Even though in Elm city twenty-five nonresidents have joined its club in the past years, the data cannot show that more nonresidents in Oak city can join it. It is equally possible that twenty-five people cover most of their memberships.[是想说这25个把外来人员名额占满了吧？再表达清晰点] As a result, other people can hardly join the club any longer. Before show that the restricting membership is indeed unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak city, the author convince us little.


To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide more striking evidence that nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and policy of the city, and he also needs to convince us that only residents understand how the money could be best used to improve the city. To better it, more evidences need to be provided to prove that restricting membership in this way is in fact unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak city.   

偷懒哦，有些话自己要复述出来，而不是抄出来，这样下去长进速度变慢，加油，一分努力一分收获！