Argument177 12月高强第五周周四作业

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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: 677          TIME: 0:29:23          DATE: 2006-12-21

还是从12月JJ里找的题, 汗..
提纲:
1, 没证明外来人员不能理解, 错误因果
2, 没证明这种措施不会另他们失望 A, ELM的错误因果 B, 草率推广

In this argument, the author suggests that Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. Such a suggestion is based on two assumptions: 1) people who work in Oak City and live elsewhere cannot truly understand its business and politics; 2) such a restriction is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City. However, the author fails to provide enough evidence to prove either of these assumptions. A careful scrutiny will show us the critical flaws of this argument.

On one hand, the author unfairly neglects the abilities of nonresidents employed in Oak City to understand its local issues, therefore excluding their possible contribution and necessity to the civic club. What he states as evidence, is merely that only residents pay city taxes and therefore these people can understand how the money could be best be used to improve the city. This causal relation is not reasonable. For analogy, we can consider a boss who pays his employees with certain salary, will it be proper to say that only the boss knows how his employees can use the money he pays in best aspects? Of course no. Have you seen any boss arranges his employees' shopping list? Whether a person pays taxes to a city is not the crucial reason for him to understand this city's business and politics, while comprehensive studies, practical experiences and expertise will be more important. If there is an economist or experienced leader in nonresidents employed in Oak City, and interested in this city's local issues, he is likely to have more reasonable views to these issues, rather than a person who just works in Oak City and pays no attention to its economy and politics. In this sense, only after the author take convincing surveys, investigations and reasonable analysis on the abilities of saying something in the club, can we accept his assumption.

On the other hand, the author uses a different city's experience to predict OakCity's situation, and generalizes this city's experience hastily. It is stated that neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy but only twenty-five nonresidents have joined this club in the last ten years.

In the first place, however, this statement is too vague and insufficient to prove Elm City's nonresidential employees are not willing to join the club and they won't be disappointed by restriction. We are not given the exact number and situation of members in Elm City's Club in the last ten years, leaving it possible that all these twenty-five members joined the club recently and gain important positions in the club. Meanwhile, number cannot stand for abilities. We may suspect that although nonresidents in ElmCity’s Club are limited, they have great contributions to the club, and gain trust from the city's public. If this is true, it is entirely possible that if Elm City's club realizes restriction, it will suffer from critics not only from nonresidents but even local people who are focusing on the club.

Secondly, even assuming the nonresidents do not have been willed to join such a club in Elm City, its experience cannot be cited to predict Oak City's situation, because conditions of these two cities are not given and may be totally different, therefore making the author's analogy not reasonable and convincing. Are nonresidents employed in Oak City sharing a similar view to local issues with those in Elm City? Are these two cities' issues comparable when being discussed? Are people in these two cities' taking the clubs as similar symbols? Without answering these questions, the author cannot make us believe that nonresidents employed in Oak City are not willed to join the club and won't be disappointed by the restriction.

To sum up, the argument lacks of evidence and reasonable analysis, therefore making the author's suggestion not convincing. To make his suggestion more attractive, the author needs to take further study on both the necessity and possible results of such a restriction to prove it is feasible and effective.

sunnie_518UID: 2136235

In this argument, the author suggests that Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. Such a suggestion is based on two assumptions: 1) people who work in Oak City and live elsewhere cannot truly understand its business and politics; 2) such a restriction is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City. However, the author fails to provide enough evidence to prove either of these assumptions. A careful scrutiny will show us the critical flaws of this argument. On one hand, the author unfairly neglects the abilities of nonresidents employed in Oak City to understand its local issues, therefore excluding their possible contribution and necessity to the civic club. What he states as evidence, is merely that only residents pay city taxes and therefore these people can understand how the money could be best be used to improve the city. This causal relation is not reasonable. For analogy, we can consider a boss who pays his employees with certain salary, will it be proper to say that only the boss knows how his employees can use the money he pays in best aspects? Of course no. Have you seen any boss arranges his employees' shopping list? Whether a person pays taxes to a city is not the crucial reason for him to understand this city's business and politics, while comprehensive studies, practical experiences and expertise will be more important. If there is an economist or experienced leader in nonresidents employed in Oak City, and interested in this city's local issues, he is likely to have more reasonable views to these issues, rather than a person who just works in Oak City and pays no attention to its economy and politics. In this sense, only after the author take convincing surveys, investigations and reasonable analysis on the abilities of saying something in the club, can we accept his assumption. On the other hand, the author uses a different city's experience to predict OakCity's situation, and generalizes this city's experience hastily. It is stated that neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy but only twenty-five nonresidents have joined this club in the last ten years. In the first place, however, this statement is too vague and insufficient to prove Elm City's nonresidential employees are not willing to join the club and they won't be disappointed by restriction. We are not given the exact number and situation of members in Elm City's Club in the last ten years, leaving it possible that all these twenty-five members joined the club recently and gain important positions in the club. Meanwhile, number cannot stand for abilities. We may suspect that although nonresidents in ElmCity’s Club are limited, they have great contributions to the club, and gain trust from the city's public. If this is true, it is entirely possible that if Elm City's club realizes restriction, it will suffer from critics not only from nonresidents but even local people who are focusing on the club. Secondly, even assuming the nonresidents do not have been willed to join such a club in Elm City, its experience cannot be cited to predict Oak City's situation, because conditions of these two cities are not given and may be totally different, therefore making the author's analogy not reasonable and convincing. Are nonresidents employed in Oak City sharing a similar view to local issues with those in Elm City? Are these two cities' issues comparable when being discussed? Are people in these two cities' taking the clubs as similar symbols? Without answering these questions, the author cannot make us believe that nonresidents employed in Oak City are not willed to join the club and won't be disappointed by the restriction. To sum up, the argument lacks of evidence and reasonable analysis, therefore making the author's suggestion not convincing. To make his suggestion more attractive, the author needs to take further study on both the necessity and possible results of such a restriction to prove it is feasible and effective. good argument,特别是body第一段的类比论证要好好学习.