Argument177 <米国有米1月28日作业>

aefiterUID: 2134740

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: 488          TIME: 0:27:00          DATE: 2007-1-28

感觉Oak City和 Elm City 在文章中重复太多了。

The arguer asserts that Oak City's Civic Club should be restricted to residents in Oak City. Before we adopt this suggestion, we should assess the feasibility to make analogy between Elm City and Oak City in the behavior of nonresidents in this issue. In addition, the reasoning to validate this restriction does not hold after the arguer provides the reason that only residents know how to use the money to improve Oak City. As a result, this argument is unconvincing as it stands.

As a club to discuss local issues, Oak City's Civic Club should incorporate all participants in Oak City, whether they are residents or mere workers in Oak City. The arguer does provide a refutation to this idea, that only those who pay money to Oak City have the right to discuss the issue of how to use this money. However, this reasoning is merely an emotional repugnance to those who do not pay taxes to Oak City. The key problem to this reasoning is that people who pay money to Oak City are not necessarily clear about the way to use this money. For residents in Oak City who are specialized at technological issues, they do not understand the management of Oak City, and accordingly know little about which part of Oak City need money most. The arguer cannot persuade us using this assumption that only those pay know how to use the money.

In addition, the supplement of this argument, that Oak City’s Club should restrict nonresidents' rights to discuss the use of the money collected from tax, is based on an ineffective analogy between Elm City and Oak City. Although, as we know, the City's Club in Elm City attracts only 25 members of nonresidents, this number should firstly not be regarded as a small portion of that club given that no sum of the number in Elm City's Club is provided in this argument. Perhaps all members amount to 50 in Elm City's Club, and 25 nonresidents in this club is a very high rate of participation. Compared to the overall population in Elm City, among which only one third of population is nonresidents, 25 members against a sum 50 is a high rate.

Finally, even we assume only few nonresidents in Elm City joined Elm City's Club, this fact does not mean nonresidents do not like to join this Club. As it is entirely possible that the composition of workers in Elm City is different from Oak City, and nonresidents in Elm City do not work in administrative area, they may not choose to participate in Elm City's Club. However, nonresidents in Oak City are widely scattered in various kinds of jobs in Oak City, and many of them feel interested in the discussion of the issue of how to spend the tax income of Oak City, this restriction will make nonresidents in Oak City disappointed, which is contrary to the assertion of the arguer.

blackswitchUID: 2110679

The arguer asserts that Oak City's Civic Club should be restricted to residents in Oak City. Before we adopt this suggestion, we should assess the feasibility to make analogy between Elm City and Oak City in the behavior of nonresidents in this issue. In addition, the reasoning to validate this restriction does not hold after the arguer provides the reason that only residents know how to use the money to improve Oak City. As a result, this argument is unconvincing as it stands.[ 开篇很好]

As a club to discuss local issues, Oak City's Civic Club should incorporate all participants in Oak City, whether they are residents or mere workers in Oak City. The arguer does provide a refutation to this idea, that only those who pay money to Oak City have the right to discuss the issue of how to use this money. However, this reasoning is merely an emotional repugnance to those who do not pay taxes to Oak City. The key problem to this reasoning is that people who pay money to Oak City are not necessarily clear about the way to use this money. For residents in Oak City who are specialized at technological issues, they do not understand the management of Oak City, and accordingly know little about which part of Oak City need money most.[如果这个从事技术的人很关注时事，那他还是会了解的亚] The arguer cannot persuade us using this assumption that only those pay know how to use the money.[从Oak的居民不一定了解钱的使用，感觉说服力不强，因为文中强调的是非居民没有资格加入，并不是说每个居民都可以加入]

In addition, the supplement of this argument, that Oak City’s Club should restrict nonresidents' rights to discuss the use of the money collected from tax, is based on an ineffective analogy between Elm City and Oak City. Although, as we know, the City's Club in Elm City attracts only 25 members of nonresidents, this number should firstly not be regarded as a small portion of that club given that no sum of the number in Elm City's Club is provided in this argument. Perhaps all members amount to 50 in Elm City's Club, and 25 nonresidents in this club is a very high rate of participation. Compared to the overall population in Elm City, among which only one third of population is nonresidents, 25 members against a sum 50 is a high rate.

Finally, even we assume only few nonresidents in Elm City joined Elm City's Club, this fact does not mean nonresidents do not like to join this Club. As it is entirely possible that the composition of workers in Elm City is different from Oak City, and[觉得不用and更好些，因为这句话和后面的一句是平行的] nonresidents in Elm City do not work in administrative area, they may not choose to participate in Elm City's Club. However, nonresidents in Oak City are widely scattered in various kinds of jobs in Oak City, and many of them feel interested in the discussion of the issue of how to spend the tax income of Oak City, this restriction will make nonresidents in Oak City disappointed, which is contrary to the assertion of the arguer.
[怎么没有结尾呢？  总的来说，aeifer的作文已经写得很好了。 在这篇文章里，觉得第二，三点的分析很到位了，对于第一点的分析可以再深入一些，]

aefiterUID: 2134740

还是觉得互改好，呵呵

第一点我论证的有问题，应该说明pay tax与指导如何用钱的不相关性。主要是太着急了。
没有结尾是因为时间不足，看到题目后，还是要花很长时间来构思:(

blackswitchUID: 2110679

唉  我现在都还不能限时呢  一定要加油