argument177 <米国有米寒假作业第二天〉

blackswitchUID: 2110679

177
提纲：
1 错误的因果关系： 工作在Oak city,居住在其他地方，就认为这些人不理解Oak的商业和政治 。
2 没有说明OCCC 具体包含哪些事务。
3 错误的类比  

In this argument, the arguer concludes that membership in Oak City’s Civil Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak city. To support this point, the arguer points out that nonresidents of Oak City cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city and cites the results of neighboring Elm City’s open member ship. However, as it stands, the argument is hardly convincing due to the following critical fallacies.
First of all, the arguer assumes that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics. Yet, the arguer provide no evidence to substantiate it . Suppose that some people worked as  leaders of business or politics in Oak City, in this case, although they do not live in Oak city, do these people truly understand the business and politics of the city?  Even if these people are not leaders but ordinary employee, commonsense tells me that the business and politics of the city always influence these people .For example, if the economy of Oak City go to pot ,these people are likely to face the danger of  losing job. Therefore, to convince me that these people do not truly understand the business and politics of the city, the arguer must provide more information about these peoples’ work.
Secondly, The arguer only says that the club’s objective is to discuss “local discuss” but fails to tell us the detail of “local issues” . In my opinion, when the content of the club is related with the people who do not live in this city, these people would be interested in joining in the club. For instance, the club discuss how to improve the public traffic , I believe this problem would get the same concern from the people who  work in Oak city but who live elsewhere would  and the people who live in this city. Besides, when the club tries to adopt effective ways to enhance the job opportunity, these people who do not live in Oak city are likely to have good suggestion based on their practical experience. Further, even if the issues which was discussed in Oak City’s Civic Club do not bring about direct influence to these unresidents , these people who live elsewhere ,may put forwards good suggestion to this issue because they can compare the condition in Oak City with the city they live thereby getting a good idea.
In the final analysis, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between Oak city and neighboring Elm City. In order to support that an open membership policy is unnecessary for Oak city, the arguer must assume that all relevant circumstance involving the nonresidents employed are the same in the two cities. However, this assumption is not unwarranted. For example, this argument overlooks the possibility that the Elm city only has a few of nonresidents employed while Oak city has a large amount of. The work positions of these people are also important. A majority of the nonresidents in Elm city worked as ordinary works and frequently changed theirs job among different cities, yet most of the nonresidents in Oak city take important role in their jobs and generally worked for a long time. In this case, the nonresidents employed in Oak City may have a stronger desire to take part in the club while the nonresident in Elm City do not.
To sum up, the argument is hardly convincing due to the above fallacies. To convince that the membership in Oak City’s Civil Club should be restricted to residents, the arguer must provide more information about these nonresidents employed and the Oak City’s Civic Club.

绚烂夏花UID: 2245298

argument177 <米国有米寒假作业第二天〉

177
提纲：
1 错误的因果关系： 工作在Oak city,居住在其他地方，就认为这些人不理解Oak的商业和政治 。
2 没有说明OCCC 具体包含哪些事务。
3 错误的类比  

In this argument, the arguer concludes that membership in Oak City’s Civil Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak city. To support this point, the arguer points out that nonresidents of Oak City cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city and cites the results of neighboring Elm City’s open member ship. However, as it stands, the argument is hardly convincing due to the following critical fallacies.
First of all, the arguer assumes that people who work in Oak City but who[who去掉更简洁] live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics. Yet, the arguer provide no evidence to substantiate it . Suppose that some people worked as  leaders of business or politics in Oak City, in this case, although they do not live in Oak city, do these people truly understand the business and politics of the city?  Even if these people are not leaders but ordinary employee, commonsense tells me that the business and politics of the city always influence these people .For example, if the economy of Oak City go to pot ,these people are likely to face the danger of  losing job. Therefore, to convince me that these people do not truly understand the business and politics of the city, the arguer must provide more information about these peoples’ work.
Secondly, The arguer only says that the club’s objective is to discuss “local discuss” but fails to tell us the detail of “local issues” . In my opinion, when the content of the club is related with the people who do not live in this city, these people would be interested in joining in the club. For instance,[if] the club discuss how to improve the public traffic , I believe this problem would get the same concern from the people who  work in Oak city but who live elsewhere would  and[as与前面的the same 对应] the people who live in this city. Besides, when the club tries to adopt effective ways to enhance the job opportunity, these[these可以去掉] people who do not live in Oak city are likely to have good suggestion based on their practical experience. Further, even if the issues which was discussed in Oak City’s Civic Club do not bring about direct influence to these unresidents , these people who live elsewhere ,may put forwards good suggestion to this issue because they can compare the condition in Oak City with the city they live thereby getting a good idea.这一段后部分分析写得很好！不过开头的那个错误指代不是很清晰，要看完整段才知道你的真实意思
In the final analysis, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between Oak city and neighboring Elm City. In order to support that an open membership policy is unnecessary for Oak city, the arguer must assume that all relevant circumstance involving the nonresidents employed are the same in the two cities. However, this assumption is not unwarranted. For example, this argument overlooks the possibility that the Elm city only has a few of [of可以去掉]nonresidents employed while Oak city has a large amount of. The work positions of these people are also important. A majority of the nonresidents in Elm city worked as ordinary works and frequently changed theirs job among different cities, yet most of the nonresidents in Oak city take important role in their jobs and generally worked for a long time. In this case, the nonresidents employed in Oak City may have a stronger desire to take part in the club while the nonresident in Elm City do not.
To sum up, the argument is hardly convincing due to the above fallacies. To convince [me] that the membership in Oak City’s Civil Club should be restricted to residents, the arguer must provide more information about these nonresidents employed and the Oak City’s Civic club.
觉得你已经有自己的写作思路了：)