[资料分享] 2.28 小鸡要快跑哈 A177 [复制链接]

longxu
UID: 2290268

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 217
注册时间: 2007-1-5
精华: 0
帖子: 2

发表于 2007-2-28 22:44:58 |显示全部楼层

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."

The argument concludes that restricting membership in Oak City's Civic Club(OC) to city residents is important. To support the conclusion, the author presents the evidence that only the residents under the city and know how to improve the city and a comparison with Elm City's Civic Club(EC). However, the evidence and the comparison upon which the author relies are unconvincing and ambiguous in some critical aspects.

First of all, the assumption that the nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city seems logical but still could not be interpreted. Perhaps, there are professors and scholars about the business and politics in the city. It is absurd for OC to restraint them to attend to the club, since they could bring the city a great number of good ideas about the development of the city. Unless the author can demonstrate that there is no indeed excellent nonresident in the city, the author's assumption about the issue, consequently, would be serious undermined.

Next point, the argument fails to take into consideration the fact that the residents who pay city taxes will know how to use the money best to improve the city. Give that the capability of the residents are not high enough to express their far-reaching advice, it is not reasonable to exclude the nonresidents to give their advice. Or perhaps, the city is not greatly developed, and the residents have little knowledge about what is important for the construction of the city. Thus, the assumption is not well reasoned.

Thirdly, the implicated similarities between OC and EC are insufficient to substantiate that OC should continue to restraint membership to the residents. Even though OC is near to EC, it is, nevertheless, unfounded to believe that OC should take the same step with EC. There are, as the case may be, other measures in EC which are not included in the information for OC. Or perhaps OC' scheme is unique in certain realm. Therefore, we cannot accept the reliability of the comparison.

Last but not least, the evidence that only twenty five nonresidents have join the EC is not convincing, in that the author fails to demonstrate the number of residents who have joined the club. It is likely that the number of nonresidents in the club is much more than the number of residents, though there is only twenty five nonresidents in EC. So the restriction of OC will still disappoint a multitude of nonresident to discuss the local issue they have cared about.

To sum up, the argument is indeed logical unsound with the existing evidence and the comparison. To assess it, I needto know: (1) whether or not there is persuasive similarities between EC and OC; (2) what is the percentage of nonresidents in EC; (3) the residents have passion and ability to attend the discuss of local issues. To strongly strengthen it, the author should present clear evidence that the nonresidents are not able to give useful advice about the city.

[ 本帖最后由 longxu 于 2007-2-28 22:46 编辑 ]

使用道具举报

ASKFORTROUBLE
UID: 2284103

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 624
注册时间: 2006-12-16
精华: 0
帖子: 1

发表于 2007-3-1 15:09:19 |显示全部楼层

The argument concludes that restricting membership in Oak City's Civic Club(OC) to city residents is important（文章说的是应该吧，不是重要有点偏了）. To support the conclusion, the author presents the evidence that only the residents under（什么意思） the city and know how to improve the city and（用一个and 就行了...） a comparison with Elm City's Civic Club(EC). However, the evidence and the comparison upon which the author relies are unconvincing and ambiguous in some critical aspects.

First of all, the assumption that the nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city seems logical but still could not be interpreted(你好像上次就用这个了，是解释说明的意思么，好像不错诶). Perhaps, there are professors and scholars about the business and politics in the city（加上一句这些人都是外地的）. It is absurd for OC to restraint them to attend to the club, since they could bring the city a great number of good ideas about the development of the city(不要用两遍city，距离太近了有点). Unless the author can demonstrate that there is no indeed excellent nonresident in the city, the author's assumption about the issue, consequently, would be serious undermined（很厉害的undermine，似乎很有老美上来就把人拍死的风格，不过我比较倾向一点一点摁死，典型中国人）.

Next point, the argument fails to take into consideration（不错） the fact that the residents who pay city taxes will know how to use the money best to improve the city. Give that（Given that这个词很好别写错了） the capability of the residents are not high enough to express their far-reaching advice（崇拜上一个词）, it is not reasonable to exclude the nonresidents to give their advice. Or perhaps, the city is not greatly developed, and the residents have little knowledge（有点像在损人诶） about what is important for the construction of the city. Thus, the assumption is not well reasoned.

Thirdly, the implicated similarities（这里你要说有没有similarity呢？） between OC and EC are insufficient to substantiate that OC should continue to restraint membership to the residents. Even though OC is near to EC, it is, nevertheless, unfounded to believe that OC should take the same step with EC（啊哟这个有必要说么？离得近不能代表什么吧）. There are, as the case may be（不错不错）, other measures in EC which are not included in the information for OC. Or perhaps OC' scheme is unique in certain realm. Therefore, we cannot accept the reliability of the comparison.

Last but not least, the evidence that only twenty five nonresidents have joined the EC is not convincing, in that the author fails to demonstrate the number of residents who have joined the club. It is likely that the number of nonresidents in the club is much more than the number of residents, though there is only twenty five nonresidents in EC. So the restriction of OC will still disappoint a multitude of nonresident to discuss the local issue they have cared about（用they care about吧，一直都关心的）.

To sum up, the argument is indeed logical unsound with the existing evidence and the comparison. To assess it, I needto know: (1) whether or not there is persuasive similarities between EC and OC; (2) what is the percentage of nonresidents in EC; (3) the residents have passion and ability to attend the discuss of local issues.（前两个都是选择句这个怎么变成陈述句了呢？） To strongly strengthen it, the author should present clear evidence that the nonresidents are not able to give useful advice about the city.