Argument177 sisong2003--Hamming小组第五次作业

sisong2003UID: 2154005

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: 402          TIME: 上午 00:45:00          DATE: 2006-12-19
提纲：
1.        无证据说明只在OC工作的人不了解OC的政治经济
2.        Elm 结论不代表OC的外来工作人员也是一样
In this letter, the author recommends that the membership of Oak City's Civic Club (OCCC) should continue to be restricted to people living in Oak City. To support this recommendation, the author claims that the people who work in Oak city (OC) but not live here can not really understand the business and politics of the city. And the author also cites the result of neighboring Elm City's Civic Club to claim that the membership restriction will not disappoint the nonresident employees. The argument rests on unconvincing assumptions which render it unwarranted.

To begin with, the argument lacks of substantiated evidence that the residents understand the business and politics truly. It is entirely possible that the nonresidents employed in OC are experts of business or politics hired by the government of OC as special consultants. And these people not only have the professional knowledge of business or politics but also have experience on business or politics from their living cities. Thus, it seems that they may understand the OC's business and politics truly and deeply. Without taking this possibility into account, the author can not convince us that the nonresident employees can not understand the OC's business or politics truly.

Moreover, from Elm city's Civic Club which has an open membership policy but had only twenty-five nonresident employees joined the club in the last ten years, the author assumes that the situation would also take place in neighboring OC, and restricting membership policy will not disappoint the nonresidents. However, the author overlooks some facets that these two cities may have little similar in the scale of city, the population of residents, and so forth. It is entirely likely that the Elm City has little the nonresidents employed there, so the people joined the Club may be few accordingly. It is also likely that the nonresidents of Elm City have joined some other clubs which are also mainly to discuss the local issue in the last ten years. So the figure of nonresident employees joined the Elm City’s Club is comparative small. Without considering these factors, the author can not simply amount the conclusion of Elm City’s Civic Club to the OCCC.

In sum, the argument relies on some faulty assumptions which render it unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more evidence that the nonresidents really cannot understand the business or politics of OC. To better evaluate it, the author must provide more information of the reliability of the results of the Elm City’s Civic Club.  

tomato217UID: 2126636

In this letter, the author recommends that the membership of Oak City's Civic Club (OCCC) should continue to be restricted to people living in Oak City. To support this recommendation, the author claims that the people who work in Oak city (OC) but not live here can not really understand the business and politics of the city. And the author also cites the result of neighboring Elm City's Civic Club to claim that the membership restriction will not disappoint the nonresident employees[可以肯定有这种表达？]. [加连词，这里由复述作者观点开始转到自己的看法]The argument rests on unconvincing assumptions which render it unwarranted.

To begin with, the argument lacks of substantiated evidence that the residents understand the business and politics truly. It is entirely possible that the nonresidents employed in OC are experts of business or politics hired by the government of OC as special consultants. [反例挑的不错！]And these people not only have the professional knowledge of business or politics but also have experience on business or politics from their living cities. Thus, it seems that they may understand the OC's business and politics truly and deeply[这里可以只用deeply，因为段尾马上又一个truly。尽量避免小范围内词汇重复，题目中的关键名词除外]. Without taking this possibility into account, the author can not convince us that the nonresident employees can not understand the OC's business or politics truly.

Moreover, from Elm city's Civic Club which has an open membership policy but had[时态参见题目] only twenty-five nonresident employees joined the club in the last ten years, the author assumes that the situation would also take place in neighboring OC, and restricting membership policy will not disappoint the nonresidents.[这里最好把抽象名词situation展开成如果OC也open会没多少nonresidents参加] However, the author overlooks some facets that these two cities may have little similar in the scale of city, the population of residents, and so forth. It is entirely likely that the Elm City has little[few] the[del] nonresidents employed there, so the people joined the Club may be few accordingly. It is also likely that the nonresidents of Elm City have joined some other clubs which are also mainly to discuss the local issue in the last ten years. So the figure of nonresident employees joined the Elm City’s Club is comparative small[little comparative]. Without considering these factors, the author can not simply amount the conclusion of Elm City’s Civic Club to the OCCC.

In sum, the argument relies on some faulty assumptions which render it unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more evidence that the nonresidents really cannot understand the business or politics of OC. To better evaluate it, the author must provide more information of the reliability of the results of the Elm City’s Civic Club[3个of给人累赘的感觉，more reliable information about the statement of civic clubs and nonresidents in EC].

例子很贴切，展开的不错，改下来我都学到不少东西啊，呵呵
一起fighting！！！