argument177 【米国有米】寒假作业1.28

holdingUID: 2285054

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: 414          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-28

In this argument, the arguer claims that the club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. To support his conclusion, the arguer sounds that people who live elsewhere can not truly understand the city and only people who live in it pay city taxes should understand how the money could best be used. Besides, the author draws an example of neighboring Elm City's Civic Club to prove his argument. It seems to be persuaded. But after a carefully research on it, we can find that the argument is not reasonable because of his several logical flaws.

Firstly, the author makes a mistake of the first evidence. There is no evidence that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is possibly that the people who work in the city are very interesting in the business and politics of the city which are related to their own work. So as a worker or a business man, the people working in the city should familiar to the local politics and business. And, hence, the people who work in the city but live outside would quite understand the city completely.

What's more, the arguer says the city residents paying city taxes can know how to use the money best to improve the city. In the case, the arguer fails to build the relationship between paying city taxes and knowledge of how to use the taxes. The residents who pay the taxes are not necessarily to know how to use the money best to improve the city, because the people who pay taxes are possibly know nothing about business and politics. On the contrary, people who work in the city but not live in it would be a expert in the field of city management and can make a right decision in the using of money.

Finally, the arguer ignore that every things in the world is unit, two things can not be same in the world. So does cities. Neighboring Elm City joined only twenty-five nonresidents in the last ten years. It is possibly that Elm City has fewer nonresidents working in the city, while Oak City has a lot. Although neighboring Elm City's Civic Club can close to nonresidents, Oak City's should allow nonresidents to join in it.

To sum up, if the author wants to draw his conclusion, he should show more evidence to prove his idea. The arguer should find more evidences to prove that the familiar between Oak City and its neighboring city. Also, the author can find more link between living in the city and know how to build the city and be interested on the city.

cckantUID: 2247822

argument177 【米国有米】寒假作业1.28



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: 414          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-28

In this argument, the arguer claims that the club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. To support his conclusion, the arguer sounds that people who live elsewhere can not truly understand the city and only people who live in (it――who live in the city and pay city taxes) pay city taxes should understand how the money could best be used. Besides, the author draws an example of neighboring Elm City's Civic Club to prove his argument. It seems to be persuaded. But after a carefully research(analysis) on it, we can find that the argument is not reasonable because of his several logical flaws.

Firstly, the author makes a mistake of(in) the first evidence. There is no evidence that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is possibly(possible) that the people who work in the city are very interesting in the business and politics of the city which are related to their own work. So as a worker or a business man, the people working in the city should familiar to the local politics and business. And, hence, the people who work in the city but live outside would quite understand the city completely(quite 和completely重复，去掉一个就可以了).

What's more, the arguer says the city residents paying city taxes can know how to use the money best to improve the city. In the case, the arguer fails to build the relationship between paying city taxes and knowledge of how to use the taxes. The residents who pay the taxes are not necessarily to know how to use the money best to improve the city, because the people who pay taxes (are去掉) possibly know nothing about business and politics. On the contrary, people who work in the city but not live in it would be a expert in the field of city management and can make a right decision in the using of money.

Finally, the arguer ignore that every things in the world is unit(unique), two things can not be same in the world. (作为段首中心句，这话覆盖面太广了，不明很明确地表达这一段要攻击的目标) So does cities. Neighboring Elm City joined only twenty-five nonresidents in the last ten years. It is possibly that Elm City has fewer nonresidents working in the city, while Oak City has a lot. Although neighboring Elm City's Civic Club can (be) close to nonresidents, Oak City's should allow nonresidents to join in it.

To sum up, if the author wants to draw his conclusion, he should show more evidence to prove his idea. The arguer should find more evidences to prove that the familiar between Oak City and its neighboring city. Also, the author can find more link between living in the city and know how to build the city and be interested on the city.

攻击点基本都能找到了，段间的承接都不错，最优一个攻击点稍嫌展开得不够。