ARGUMENT177 米国有米寒假小组28日第二次作业

cckantUID: 2247822

TOPIC: ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in OakCity's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in OakCity. People who work in OakCity 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 resident pay city taxes and hence 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 OakCity, since neighboring ElmCity's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined ElmCity's Club in the last ten years."
WORDS: 445          TIME: 0:30:35          DATE: 2007-1-29

Outline:
1, 只有住在Oak的人才了解Oak的时务没有道理
2， 只有住在Oak的人才知道政府的钱的最佳用法没道理
3，非居民不让进City Club不会失望没有道理

In the letter above, the author argues that the OakCity's Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in OakCity. The argument is supported to by the following: 1) only people who live in OakCity can truly understand the business and politics of the city; 2) only resident understand how money could best be used to improve the city as they pay the tax; 3) nonresidents employed in OakCity are not eager to joint the club. However, evidences mentioned above are impotent to substantiate the author's conclusion due to the following reasons.

Firstly, it is ungrounded that people who work in OakCity but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. There is no a necessary link between living in one place and understanding the business and politics in that place. An public policy analyst who work in Oak City but live in the neighboring city, or an enterprise owner of a firm operates in Oak City but lives elsewhere can very familiar with the business and politics of the city.

Secondly, though residents paying city tax may be more concerned about the city improvement, they need not understand how the money could best be used for the city. Paying tax is not optional. People who live in OakCity do not pay tax simply they want improvement to the city and pay for the relevant expenditure. Paying tax does not qualify residents to be wiser in spending the money. Moreover, even that they are more concerned in the City improvement is uncertain. Businessmen with factory hiring a large number of workers in the city are expected to highly concerned about the development of the city.

Finally, by quoting that only twenty-five nonresidents have joined ElmCity's Club in the last ten years, the author is not capable to justify that nonresidents in OakCity are not willing to join the club and hence not disappointed. On one hand, we do not know how many people in total joined Elm City's club to determined whether twenty-five is a significant number or not. On the other hand, there is the contingency that there are merely a negligible number of nonresidents working in ElmCity, in which case, it is not people in the area not interested in participating discussion in the clubs, but is that the ElmCity lacks of such group of people.

In sum, the argument suggested in the letter is not as sound as it seems. The conclusion that OakCity should not open its City Club to nonresidents required more information and logical sound deduction to be a valid policy recommendation.

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

Outline:
1,只有住在Oak的人才了解Oak的时务没有道理

2，只有住在Oak的人才知道政府的钱的最佳用法没道理

3，非居民不让进City Club不会失望没有道理

   

In the letter above, the author argues that the Oak City's Club shouldcontinue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City.[信息不全，关键地方不能省] The argumentis supported to by the following: 1) only people who live in Oak City can trulyunderstand the business and politics of the city; 2) only resident [复数] understandhow money could best be used to improve the city as they pay the tax; 3)nonresidents employed in Oak City are not eager tojoint the club.[真的是不愿意吗？10年里25个nonresidents加入能证明arenot eager to吗] However, evidencesmentioned above are impotent to substantiate the author's conclusion due to thefollowing reasons.

Firstly,it is ungrounded that people who work in Oak Citybut live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of thecity. There is no [not]a necessary link between living in one place and understanding thebusiness and politics in that place. [注意句子之间的衔接] An public policy analyst who work in Oak City but live in theneighboring city, or an enterprise owner of a firm operates in Oak City butlives elsewhere can very familiar with the business and politics of the city. [连最基本简单的perhaps都没有用去说明，举出一个例子应该有合理性，没有任何条件说明就把这个例子放在这里，怎么都觉得不妥，而且没有攻击性]
Secondly,though residents paying city tax may be more concerned about the cityimprovement, they need not understand how themoney could best be used for the city.[为什么说不需要理解呢？如果你掏了钱装修，难道你不需要知道装修工人怎么用这个钱装修房子吗？] Payingtax is not optional. [这句话和前后有什么联系吗？不能证明前面句正确吧] People wholive in Oak City do not pay tax simply they [去掉] wantimprovement to the city and pay for the relevant expenditure.[这句话表意不明，晦涩] Paying taxdoes not qualify residents to be wiser in spending the money. Moreover, eventhat they are more concerned in the City improvement is uncertain. Businessmen with factory hiring a large number of workers inthe city are expected to highly concerned about the development of the city.[有根据吗？自己应该补充证明下你说的话]

[本段攻击非常不成功，句子之间结构松散，说理不透彻，例子也不具有攻击性]
  
Finally,by quoting that only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club inthe last ten years, the author is not capable to justify that nonresidents inOak City are not willing to join the club and hence not disappointed. On onehand, we do not know how many people in total joined Elm City's club todetermined whether twenty-five is a significant number or not. On the otherhand, there is the contingency that there are merely a negligible number ofnonresidents working in Elm City, in which case, it is not people in the area notinterested in participating discussion in the clubs, but is that the Elm Citylacks of such group of people.[最后一句结构混乱，表意不鲜明，缺少总结，其它还可以]
   
Insum, the argument suggested in the letter is not as sound as it seems. Theconclusion that Oak City should not open itsCity Club to nonresidents required more information and logical sound deductionto be a valid policy recommendation.[结尾草率了写，而且各段与所攻击的主题缺乏连接导致全文结构松散，所有的论证都在围着小地方转.而忽略了中心论点，句子的连接过于跳跃，建议在论证过程中也可以使用让步假设来使段落之间更加连贯]

偶批的狠了些，继续努力吧，，加油

[ 本帖最后由 ntmlgsz 于 2007-1-29 02:03 编辑 ]

cckantUID: 2247822

呵呵，批狠点好啊。很难得有组长批得那么认真得。谢谢。