Argument177 graduate06--Hamming组 自己的第8篇Argument

graduate06UID: 2223299

WORDS: 453        TIME: 34          DATE: 2006-12-19

177.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."

Oak City的市俱乐部主要目的是讨论本地事务，其成员资格应该继续被限制在居住在Oak City的市。那些在Oak City工作但在别的地方居住的人无法真正理解本城市的政治和经济。把成员资格限制在本市居非常重要，因为只有居民付城市税因而也只有他们才知道这些钱如何使用才能促进城市发展。无论如何，以这种方式限制成员资格不太可能使很多在Oak City工作的外地人失望，因为邻近城市Elm City的市俱乐部一直采取开放成员资格的政策，但在过去10年中只有25名外地人加入了Elm City的市俱乐部。

提纲：

1没有论据：那些在Oak City工作但在别的地方居住的人无法真正理解本城市的政治和经 济。

是作者的主观臆测，列出可能的反例。比如说外地在这经商的人可能就非常了解当地的经济情况。

2因果关系错: 付城市税 =\=> 他们知道这些钱如何使用

缴税不一定知道花在哪或怎么花。

3false analogy

列出两个城市可能的不同之处，比如Elm City是内陆城市且贫穷只有很少的外来人口。

WORDS: 453        TIME: 34          DATE: 2006-12-19

The argument's conclusion that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to local residents seems at first glance to be an apparent conclusion. Yet, careful scrutiny of the evidence and the argument's line of reasoning reveal多s that the arguer provides no firm support to the conclusion. First, the author assumes non-residents who work in Oak City cannot understand local situation. Besides, the arguer assumes paying city taxes is responsible for knowing the condition of Oak City. The arguer also commits a fallacy of false analogy.

The threshold problem of the argument is that the arguer assumes non-residents cannot know the local business and politics. We are not informed that the fact is like this. In this case, it is equally possible that the businessmen who live in other cities know Oak City' economy very well. Or perhaps, just because these people live and work in different places, the might see some problems that local people cannot find. So these people know the local issues much better than local inhabitants. It is that the on-looker sees most clearly.

The arguer also fails to establish a causal relationship between paying city taxes and knowing local situation. Without such evidence, it is quite possible that because the local government nearly show the use of the taxes to public, the tax-payers of Oak City do not know where the money spend on. Common sense tell me that the governments servants instead of citizens know more about how to best use the tax. Before examining and ruling out these possibilities the arguer cannot convince me that the conclusion is persuasive.

Finally, the arguer falsely analogizes that the situation between Oak City and Elm City is similar to each other. Evidently, the arguer fails to consider the differences between the two cities. Perhaps, the number of Elm City Civic Club is limit to twenty people, so the number--twenty five which is the number of nonresidents of Elm City have joined the club indicates that the nonresidents play a big part in the club. Even assuming that the figure is indeed very small, or perhaps the Elm City is an inland city that is very poor. So few people go to there for finding jobs or investing.

In sum, the argument, which seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. To strengthen it the author must provide why nonresidents of Oak City cannot know the local condition. To better evaluate the argument we need to know that how well the local residents know how to use the taxes and how many people know it. We also need to know more details of Elm City such as the location, economy, and the demographic number.

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2006-12-20 06:25 编辑 ]

graduate06UID: 2223299

The argument's conclusion that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to local residents seems at first glance to be an apparent conclusion. Yet, careful scrutiny of the evidence and the argument's line of reasoning reveal多s that the arguer provides no firm support to the conclusion. First, the author assumes non-residents who work in Oak City cannot understand local situation. Besides, the arguer assumes paying city taxes is responsible for knowing the condition of Oak City. The arguer also commits a fallacy of false analogy.

The threshold problem of the argument is that the arguer assumes non-residents cannot know the local business and politics. We are not informed that the fact is like this. In this case, it is equally possible that the businessmen who live in other cities know Oak City' economy very well. Or perhaps, just because these people live and work in different places, the might see some problems that local people cannot find. So these people know the local issues much better than local inhabitants. It is that the on-looker sees most clearly.

The arguer also fails to establish a causal relationship between paying city taxes and knowing local situation. Without such evidence, it is quite possible that because the local government nearly show the use of the taxes to public, the tax-payers of Oak City do not know where the money spend on. Common sense tell me that the governments servants instead of citizens know more about how to best use the tax. Before examining and ruling out these possibilities the arguer cannot convince me that the conclusion is persuasive.

Finally, the arguer falsely analogizes that the situation between Oak City and Elm City is similar to each other. Evidently, the arguer fails to consider the differences between the two cities. Perhaps, the number of people of Elm City Civic Club is limit to twenty people, so the number--twenty five which is the number of nonresidents have joined the club indicates that the nonresidents occupy considerable proportion in the club. Even assuming that the figure is indeed very small, or perhaps the Elm City is an inland city that is a depressed area, and few people go to there for getting a job or investing. In contrast, maybe Oak City is a big coastal city to which many people go for seeking good opportunities.
着重攻击了这一点。

In sum, the argument, which seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. To strengthen it the author must provide why nonresidents of Oak City cannot know the local condition. To better evaluate the argument we need to know that how well the local residents know how to use the taxes and how many people know it. We also need to know more details of Elm City such as the location, economy, and the demographic number.

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2006-12-23 08:27 编辑 ]

rt860113UID: 2256886

The argument's conclusion that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to local residents seems at first glance to be an apparent conclusion. Yet, careful scrutiny ofthe evidence and the argument's line of reasoning reveal that the arguer provides no firm support to the conclusion. First, the author assumes non-residents who work in Oak City cannot understand local situation. Besides,the arguer assumes paying city taxes is responsible for knowing the conditionof Oak City. The arguer also commits a fallacy of false analogy.(开篇陈述漏洞)

The threshold problem of the argument is that the arguer assumes non-residents cannot know the local business and politics. We are not informed that the fact is like this. In this case, it is equally possible that the businessmen wholive in other cities know Oak City' economy very well. Or perhaps, just becausethese people live and work in different places, the might see some problemsthat local people cannot find. So these people know the local issues muchbetter than local inhabitants. It is that the on-looker sees most clearly(这个谚语好像应该这样用lookers-on see more than players).（论述还是不错的,没发现什么明显的问题）

The arguer also fails to establish a causal relationship between paying citytaxes and knowing local situation. Without such evidence, it is quite possiblethat because the local government nearly show the use of the taxes to public,the tax-payers of Oak City do not know where the money spend on. Common sensetell me that the governments servants(employees是不是更好一些) instead of citizens know more about how to bestuse the tax(感觉有点中国英语的味道,改为use the tax in the best way如何.). Before examining and ruling out these possibilities the arguercannot convince me that the conclusion is persuasive.

Finally, the arguer falsely analogizes that the situation between Oak City andElm City is similar to each other. Evidently, the arguer fails to consider thedifferences between the two cities. Perhaps, the number of people of Elm CityCivic Club is limit to twenty people, so the number--twenty five which is thenumber of nonresidents have joined the club indicates that the nonresidentsoccupy considerable proportion in the club. Even assuming that the figure isindeed very small, or perhaps the Elm City is an inland city that is adepressed area, and few people go to there for getting a job or investing. In contrast,Oak City is a big coastal city to which many people go for seeking goodopportunities.着重攻击了这一点。(不错得比较)

In sum, the argument, which seems logical at first, has several flaws asdiscussed above. To strengthen it the author must provide why nonresidents ofOak City cannot know the local condition. To better evaluate the argument weneed to know that how well the local residents know how to make good use of the taxes and how many people know it. We also need to know more details of ElmCity such as the location, economy, and the demographic number.
总体来说还是不错的,希望作者继续努力,在细节上再注意一下会更好.
加油!

graduate06UID: 2223299

旁观者清我又查了一下，如下：The onlooker sees most of the game.

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

好多版本的,不要那么局限~